Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 13

< December 12	December 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

December 13

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think Tank Television

NN according to

WP:MUSIC Josh Parris#: 03:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Image:Speakers of the House Album Think Tank Television.jpg, only used on the above page, ought to go too. Josh Parris#: 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, empty other than the infobox. Stifle 15:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN -
talk 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting to generate more discussion.

e ] 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Just an infobox isn't sufficient. Pilatus 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem note-worthy to me. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Movementarian 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. only an infobox provided. --King of Hearts 05:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mirago

It's a POV attack against a non-notable company. The whole thing should just be deleted. Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I speedily removed the attack bits. No vote.
FCYTravis 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is a search engine company. -- JJay 01:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a really crappy article though. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably true. But are they really as NN as you say? -- JJay 07:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Mirago.co.uk has a Alexa rank of 10,070. It's not Google, but not all that bad either for a company providing internet services. They seem to get visitors. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it was up to my opinion I'd vote delete. But, as much as I may dislike it, they are notable. --Ezeu 13:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With attack bits removed, is ok as a starter stub.
CVU 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep looks fine to me now.Gator (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks fine but needs expansion.Gateman1997 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fixed version. Stifle 10:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus).

Fox 18:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Economic spectrum

This is

original research. Pilatus 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. The page reminds me of Political Compass, which is probably its source. The page just needs to be improved, not deleted. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt it. The
  political compass is different to what this article espouses. Look at the article as the original author created it. This is an opinionated essay that editors have attempted to clean up as best they can. But since the article has no sources, there has been no goal to actually aim for, and what is left after the more overtly opinionated parts were excised is not very coherent. Moreover: The section on the political spectrum is contradicted by our political spectrum article. Uncle G 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep Not a bad article, could use with a little expansion. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello} 01:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. -- JJay 02:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is beyond salvation. Sigh. Pilatus 13:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strong Keep and expand. -- JJay 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is that supposed to happen? This is an essay from User:Paganbaby without sources, worse than that, there isn't the slightest indication that "economic spectrum" has ever been used to describe the degree of government control on the economy. Since you vote to "keep", can you at least provide a roadmap what to do with it? Pilatus 06:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have to assume your request is disengenuous since you have made no attempt to improve the page. No talk page message was left prior to AfD and you long ago expressed the belief that the page was beyond salvation. I also assume that if I fail to hand you a blueprint for improving this article you will next claim that my vote is baseless, or unfounded and should not be counted- as that seems to be a common approach among noms. While your defeatism may appear seductive, my thinking is based on the following: the term is far too common not to have a page here. This is shown by google, google scholar, google books, a search of newspaper databases, etc. The term has been in wide use throughout the English speaking world since at least the 1920s. I have found many examples in government, academic and financial reports. Therefore, I believe, the best approach would be to come up with a definition for the term and provide examples. If that requires deleting the nonsense down to a stub, and expanding from there, then sobeit. The editors who will continue to contribute to the page are certainly experienced enough to undertake this process. I'm sure they would welcome your contribution. -- JJay 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you actually look at any of the references that you say you have found? Wherever Google Scholar finds the phrase "Economic spectrum" (often as its synonym "socio-economic spectrum") it nothing but the gamut of income from poor to rich, this is trivial and at best a dictdef. It certainly doesn't mean the degree of government control on the economy. As such, there is nothing salvageable here, the unsourced essay that currently resides under the lemma discourages editors to contribute. (Note: the last good edit was back in July.) Delete, and maybe redirect to social class or somesuch is my roadmap, as there is nothign to be gained from the history is my roadmap. What is yours? Pilatus 04:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - So I was right, you are being disengenuous. Thanks for wasting my time. [1]-- JJay 04:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not from
political compass. The discipline of political science uses these terms(political system, democracy, totalitarian,economic system, market economy, centrally planned economy, ideology, socialist ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, spectrum,left-right rate of change spectrum(i.e., radical, liberal, conservative, reactionary) as a matter of course. What is lacking is proper distinctions between the four separate spectra because of the use of the same word, liberal, for instance, to refer to completely different subject matters. Liberal, in one instance, is refering to the rate of change that is advocated. In another instance the same word is used to refer to a particular ideology comprised of: private ownership of property, individualism, competitive, and limited government per John Locke. The same can be said of the term conservative as a measurement of rate of change and at the same time a description of a particular ideology. For many people(societies) the distinction is not made and political systems are equated with economic systems. Even in Wikipedia this situation exists in some of the discussions. Hence, in the mind of many, democracy=market economy and totalitarian=centrally planned economy. Or, in another way, it is: democracy=capitalism/free market and socialism=totalitarianism. This is an error because in each case a political system is being equated with an economic system. How should all of this be sorted out? Correct definitions and correct applications according to the proper spectrum would help--wouldn't it? Is there a definition used that is incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.18.131 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Solid B work as an Econ 101 paper. But this does not belong in an encyclopedia. Eusebeus 12:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The reference to the entry as being contrary to Wikipedia's political spectrum entry is accurate. Here is part of the Wikipedia entry(in the Left-Right heading):

"In modern Western countries, the political spectrum is described along left-right lines. This political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy and fascism("the Right") on one end, and socialism, communism("the Left") on the other."

There are problems here that confuse rather than clarify.Theocracy describes a particular type of political system. Socialism/communism/fascism describes particular types of economic systems that have particular types of political systems. The reference to conservatism is not clear as to the intent. Is a particular ideology based on inequality and status being determined at birth being refered to(medieval Europe)? Or is this a reference to a preference to maintain the status quo in a society; which is a rate of change measurement? Many people and societies equate a democratic political system with a market economic system(democracy=capitalism.) They also have a tendency to equate a centrally planned economic system with a totalitarian political system(socialism=totalitarianism). This ignores the fact that there are separate political and economic spectra and where a country is located on one does not necessarily dictate where a country will be located on the other. In a democratic country, the people can choose to have any type of economic system they want. If they cannot choose the economic system that they desire--it is not a democracy. Fascism has a market economic system and a totalitarian political system. Socialism(communism is one type) has a centrally planned economic system and a democratic political system. Socialism has never existed in a modern society. The USSR(nor any of the others that claimed to be) was never socialist nor communist for that reason. How does the average citizen, who looks at an encylopedia to try and makes sense of these terms, deal with the fact that there terms that have different meaning depending upon the reference? How is the term liberal being used? As a reference to a society that has an ideology based upon private ownership of property, individualism, competitive, and limited government? Or is it a reference to a measurement of being willing to accept a measure of change? Shouldn't an encylopedia try to sort all of this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs)

Delete. "Economic spectrum" is at best a neologism. It does not even qualify as a dictionary definition. It is basically two good words put together (Probably an analogy to "Political spectrum") – which is deceptive. +Economic +spectrum is nothing but two words, each with its own connotation.--Ezeu 14:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. I have heard the phrase used numerous times - going back at least ten years. The concept is both notable and verifiable, with over 83,000 Google hits [2]. The article certainly does need a major overhaul and cleanup though! Blackcats 15:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a link to an article referring to "Economic spectrum" as a notable term – not merely a combination of two words in the same sentence, or a neologism?--Ezeu 16:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of sources that use the phrase as a notable term (such as this one), but after looking into it more closely, I see that the way that it's used is quite different from the way that it's used in this article. It's generally used to describe the spectrum of social classes from dire poverty to extreem wealth, and not to describe a spectrum of economic systems. So in light of this, I'm changing my vote to redirect to Social class. Perhaps at some point an article can be written specifically about the concept of a spectrum of classes. Blackcats 15:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
t c 16:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Just another way of chopping up things, but not in use in this way. You will encounter "on the economic spectrum" in newspapers, for example, but that reference is self-evident. We all know already that some economies have greater, some lesser control by elected and governmental officials, but all are under control of one thing or another. This is just a reiteration of that obvious fact. Nor do I think there is a need for a redirect, except perhaps to Economics, and that, I think, is already implicit in the term and therefore unneeded. Delete for original research. Geogre 16:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using the reasoning mentioned in the last post would suggest that the term political spectrum be deleted also. It is just two separate words that are used in the newspapers and it has greater or lesser control by elected and government officials. Social class? An economic system spectrum is not a measurement of social class. If there is a reference to a political systems spectrum in an encylopedia, shouldn't there be a reference to an economics system spectrum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs) 13 December 2005
- Check out the link I posted above - "Vietnam Deaths Spread Over Economic Spectrum." This was saying that US casualties in the war ran the full gammot from poor to rich. That's how the term is generally used. If you think that a discussion of various economic systems as a spectrum is needed, then if you find some good sources to cite go ahead and add a new section to Economic system. If that section gets big enough it could become its own article with a title like "spectrum of economic systems." Also, a note could be placed on the "social class" article to the effect that "economic spectrum redirect here - see blah-blah-blah for other uses..." Blackcats 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless "adopted" by someone who promises to find citations, and to bring it back here if they cannot be found. "Economic Spectrum" in the sense of the gamut from poor to rich is not encyclopedic; neither is this unreferenced and (in some places) POV essay that appears to be a variant political spectrum. If some significant writer has actually used this term in a manner parallel to "political spectrum" to refer to a range of views about economics, or something similar to that, fine, but I see no evidence of that. (Some of the material in this article may belong elsewhere in Wikipedia, if it can be cited.) - Jmabel | Talk 19:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete seems borderline, but not encyclopedic. Would need a lot of work. maybe a copyedit tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gator1 (talk • contribs) 13 Dec 2005
Delete Original research, unverifiable.
Chick Bowen 01:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

An economic systems spectrum is unverifiable? A market economy is unverifiable? A command economy(centrally planned is less biased, in my view) is unverifiable? The same query applies to the ideologies of conservative, liberal, and socialist. On the rate of change spectrum running from radical through liberal and conservative to reactionary this is considered as inappropriate? A political spectrum is proper but, not an economic spectrum expressing the range of economic systems available? These terms are not new. The analysis is not new. Isn't Wikipedia an opportunity for accurate information to be presented in a manner that the average citizen can understand? There is much confusion about distinctions about political and economic systems. Note the effort to try and make any discussion of economic systems spectrum a discussion of social class or rich and poor. Why? That is not the subject. How to make sense of the different meanings of these terms is the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs)
- There is no indication that anyone has ever used the word "economic spectrum" to refer to the economic system present in a country. Please read
  WP:NOR. Pilatus 13:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Where a country is located on an economic spectrum is the proper way to use the concept of an economic spectrum. Of course it is not proper to use the term economic spectrum to refer to the economic system present in a given country. What is useful is to have a range (sometimes visual) that gives expression to the relative position of various countries of the world on the economic spectrum.

                   Command economy_______________________________________________ Market economy
                  (planned economy)                                               ( free market economy)

Where should the UK be placed on this spectrum? The US? Sweden? China? Haiti? Wouldn't this be valuable information for people to have access to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs) 06:43, 16 December 2005

Delete The topic should be covered, but there's nothing redeemable here.--Bkwillwm 07:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced original research. Tagged for references, none provided.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 18:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firehosing

Dictionary definition combined with a little bit of unencyclopedic personal opinion - squibix 13:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the unencyclopedic personal opinion. Dunno what to do about the dictionary definition part - Scott 17:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you just love the irony if we vote to delete it? The question is "Is this slang?" Deferring vote. If it is slang, then it needs to be deleted; if not, it might be worth saving, but I don't know right now. B.Wind 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a google search on the term didn't bring up very much. I found it referenced on some sites on leadership/management ( ex. 1, ex. 2, ex. 3, ) and for video panning ( |ex. 1, |ex. 2 ) What is interesting is that in both cases they appear to use the term as if it is commonly accepted term. (i.e. they don't use expressions like "some people call this firehosing", "sometimes known as firehosing", etc.) Scott 13:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

)

Relisting this to generate more discussion.

e ] 00:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - The article needs some editing, no doubt, but at least the video-camera-related definition given in the external link looks to be something interesting that can be talked out. Maybe if it has a more common name, merge into that. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictdef. If someone later wants to write a great article on the history of it as a videotaping tactic then they can feel free at that point. At present it's a dictdef, and the hypothetical great article I mentioned in my last breath doesn't exist yet, so delete. Tempshill 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tempshill YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 04:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly transwiki to Wikitionary. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki if appropriate as above. Movementarian 09:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. The links provided above have convinced me the word is real. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, Ironically I use this term all the time but not with either of these meanings. Rather, it's used to denote giving too much information too fast to be assimilated. But a dictdef, even with multiple meanings, does not an article make. ++Lar 12:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slang, dictdef. Eusebeus 12:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jargon dicdef. / Ezeu 14:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dictdef of jargon, and therefore not a Wiktionary entry unless it gains traction. Geogre 16:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic.Gator (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to

e ] 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Perfect square factor

This article contains (almost) no information. It says that a perfect square factor is a factor that is a perfect square and it gives one example. It has no ingoing links from the main namespace and it was created on 26 September by an anonymous editor, so I don't see any potential for expansion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary article as both perfect square and divisor (factor) already have articles. The term "perfect square factor" comes up with regularity only when discussing simplifying square roots. B.Wind 04:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I've attempted to improve and wikify the article, but I don't feel strongly enough about its merit to vote keep. Gandalf61 10:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned there are articles on relevant concepts such as perfect square. We can take any similar concept and make it a factor, e.g. triangular factor, pentagonal factor, etc., but they don't deserve their own pages. The term perfect square factor is not of enough importance on its own merits. --C S (Talk) 03:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.
e ] 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to perfect square. All of the relevant information should already be in there. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cyde.
Harro5 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per Cyde YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello} 01:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect only because redirects are cheap. would say Delete otherwise novacatz 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no significant infoirmational value.(Sorry to the author) --Simon Cursitor 08:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - are we going to have entries/redirects for even factor? odd factor? single-digit factor? Theres an infinite number of properties a factor could satisfy, and I don't see why any of them deserve an article or a redirect. --Pierremenard

Redirect per above. This term is regularly used, so it is reasonable to assume people typing this expect to be redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to perfect square. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect implemented as per general consensus here. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helen of Troy Faustus

Fragment of source material, delete or transwiki. +sj + 13:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No votes recorded. Relisting to generate discussion.
e ] 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, it's source material with no analysis. Tempshill 00:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, copied wholesale from
The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus#Famous Monologues -- Taiichi «talk» 02:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. --Simon Cursitor 08:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and inappropriate for Wikipedia.Gator (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uncited and copied source material --Krich 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not unsourced or uncited: the opening paragraph is primarily a source citation. But it is just a straight copy from another Wikipage, absent of any real context. -- Taiichi «talk» 01:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I may not be familiar with Wiki conventions on this, but if the words are copied directly from a secondary source, with no reference to where it came from, I consider that uncited. The opening paragraph *was* a citation in the orginal Wikipage - here is is uncited and the source material copied. But this is semantics, and I mainly reply to learn more about Wiki practice in this area. Thanks. --Krich 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, ok, I see your point now. I think it was really unintentional. My "delete" vote was more to the point that the page was, IMHO, a newbie's test page that was done without malice (which is grounds for speedy, actually.) -- However, this does make for an interesting situation. While the page is copied directly from another Wikipage, The play text is itself public domain, and sourced by the preceding paragraph. This leaves the preceding paragraph as the uncited material. Thus, we have text which is primarily a citation for something else, that is itself not properly cited - oh, the irony! -- Taiichi «talk» 00:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Stifle 10:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominationMadman 19:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.
e ] 17:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Angel Witch (album)

Album from band not meeting
WP:MUSIC The Land 14:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The band does meet
WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 20:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting to generate more discussion.
e ] 00:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. AMG entry, and a pretty big album. Label as a band stub.
Harro5 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and expand. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Among other things, Angel Witch were an important influence to both Metallica and Megadeth. (See Metallica's "Cliff 'em All" video.) foot 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Angel Witch certainly qualifies for
WP:MUSIC -- Taiichi «talk» 06:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, for reasons stated. Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -
Mailer Diablo 06:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Berwick Bandits

Article was created in November 2005, has had no edits (other than mine) since then. Is sloppily written and seems to be mostly of a commercial nature. DeleteTheRingess 00:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was
(operator) 17:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.
e ] 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete nn sporting club.
Harro5 00:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Seems ok. -- JJay 02:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article makes no sense. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 04:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if Wiki-fied. Established English speedway club --Simon Cursitor 08:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up. Seems notable enough for a speedway club -- fan-sites and all that... -- Marcika 13:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nn. Sorry.Gator (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given their near-forty-year history, they get my "ten years from now" nod. D e nni ☯ 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and {{cleanup-rewrite}} to remove POV. Stifle 10:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting notability requirement. Turnstep 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Twisted Evil Guys

It's a gaming clan. They have an IRC channel. Wow. 175 Googles. Unencyclopedic.
FCYTravis 23:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per nom. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The JPS 10:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom
Airumel 11:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete gaming clans aren't encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. StealthFox 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this handful of guys doesn't even seem to be a gaming clan anymore. (OK, I only glanced at the website, but there are no forums and it looks like a blog, with four users.) --Habap 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally nn and unencyclopedic.Gator (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a gaming clan would have to do something really impressive to become notable. --
אריאל יהודה 00:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

"'Delete'" per nom. --86.135.144.67 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Krich 00:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Ronabop 09:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle 10:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted Dawn

Typical AFD fodder - a non-notable high school band. Doesn't meet
Harro5 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Theres only 2 people in high school in the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.188.106 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rusted dawn have a massive fanbase which is constantly growing, keep the article —the preceding
unsigned comment is by 142.167.27.24 (talk • contribs
) 01:57, 13 December 2005

Delete, they really don't meet
WP:MUSIC Pilatus 03:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Also vanity. Ifnord 03:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , simply because of sockpuppetry YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of compliance with
WP:NMG. Capitalistroadster 06:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Rusted dawn? I smell napalm in the morning. Delete. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nn band and vanity

Delete nn. --
אריאל יהודה 00:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, and vanity. --Krich 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mëtäl härdcöre Dëlëte per nom. Ronabop 09:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn band. Stifle 10:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This band is the most notable band in the area of Kings County, New Brunswick. It is also the most prominent example of Atlantic thrash metal (wherein Atlantic refers to the Maritime provinces of Canada). Soviet Dolphin 10:18 PM, December 15 2005 (UTC)

Delete fails
WP:MUSIC --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.
e ] 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Black Lace (books)

Article consists of one line (that seems to be very pov} and a link to a commercial website.Delete TheRingess 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was
(operator) 17:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Notable imprint (and there are numerous imprint articles such as Target Books. If there's a copyvio concern, simply rewrite the line. 23skidoo 22:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly notable and popular - David Gerard 13:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.
e ] 00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, advertising. Evidence of importance not presented, will change vote if someone presents a verifiable source citation suggesting this is important in, say, the way Olympia Press or Grove Press was. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a current imprint, along the lines of, say Target Books. It doesn't have historical important, but neither does Target or many other current imprints. 23skidoo 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. -- JJay 02:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a stub, but I removed the POV and ad-like copy. It's now a more straightforward stub. 23skidoo 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's (currently) a crappy stub but the line is notable. I have faith a one-handed typist will be able to expand on it eventually. Ifnord 03:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- as a subject it's probably valid, but this stub gives little or no workable content --Simon Cursitor 08:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yep, though you wouldnt know it from the stub, Black Lace is definitely a notable UK imprint. They were rather groundbreaking, a decade or so ago, as a wing of a mainstream publisher bringing erotica imprints into mainstream bookshops. Here is an article explaining the background. Tearlach 11:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a stub, but it could be grown.
CVU 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and expand as long as notability can be proved and is demonstrated in expanded article. StealthFox 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to
e ] 17:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Swanson

This afd nomination was
(operator) 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

It could be vanity, but then again, adding references would solidify the article. I leave it up to our Canadian editors as to whether he's notable or not. Abstaining for now. B.Wind 05:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We have to keep this one. Efforts to delete other candidates (even ones that had yet to secure a party nomination, such as [[3]]) have not always succeeded, and I don't think it's fair to delete some candidates, but keep others. Skeezix1000 12:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We keep some candidates because they satisfy the
WP:BIO criteria on other grounds. Being merely a candidate for elected office is not one of the inclusion criteria. Uncle G 03:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

That might be the theory, but it's not the practice. We should keep them all, rather than haphazardly deleting a random few. Skeezix1000 13:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is the practice, by and large, too. Don't draw inferences from just one case where this hasn't been so. Uncle G 16:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the practice, then it's not being implemented very well. I just spent three minutes pulling articles on candidates in central Toronto, where I live, and I've already located a number that likely don't satisfy the
WP:BIO, or we let all candidate articles stand. If the former, then are you suggesting that we nominate potentially hundreds of articles for afd? And wouldn't fairness require that we do so fairly early in the election? Skeezix1000 17:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Keeping the articles on subjects that satisfy the
WP:BIO criteria, simply because some of the articles about such children have never been nominated for deletion, and "it wouldn't be fair to delete some and not the others". Clearly, the argument is flawed.
Finally: "Potentially hundreds" is not the same as "hundreds". Uncle G 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
There's a big difference between 13 year old school children and candidates in the upcoming federal election, as only one pertains to a significant political process in Canada. Haphazardly and selectively deleting articles on certain candidates gives rise to accusations of political favouritism by Wikipedia in a way that deleting or not deleting articles on schoolchildren does not.
As for the reference to "potentially hundreds", the election just started, and is not expected to pick up steam (so to speak) until after the holidays. Over the next few weeks, many candidates (or more likely, their supporters) will undoubtedly create additional articles on Wikipedia that will not meet
WP:BIO, in addition to all those that already candidate articles that already exist. There are more than 300 ridings, at least 5 political parties contesting every riding, with numerous independent and minor party candidates. You do the math.
Finally: I am tired of the lectures of how "ill-founded" and "flawed" my opinion is, so I am changing my vote to delete. I will, as suggested, nominate other articles for afd in an attempt to maintain some neutrality during the election. Skeezix1000 22:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
On the contrary: It is disregarding the
WP:BIO criteria that is haphazard, not the converse.
Secondly: Wikipedia has been been around through several major elections. (I was one of the many editors that participated in the projects to cover some of them.) Your dire predictions don't match past experience.
Finally: As any New Pages patroller who has patrolled for a significant length of time will attest, if candidates and their supporters will be creating articles on Wikipedia about themselves telling the world how great they are and about all of their hopes, aspirations, and minor achievements, they are functionally indistinguishable from the 13-year-old schoolchildren that do exactly that too. Uncle G 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep, cleanup, NPOVize, and check for copyvio. Stifle 14:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major party candidate. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.
e ] 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep of course. -- JJay 02:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that this person is a candidate, and has never actually won an election. People who have never actually won an election have to satisfy the
WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Uncle G 03:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per User:Uncle G

Delete. Copyright violation of his campaign biography see [9] Unfortunately, it has been here more than two days but allowing political candidates or their supporters to post campaign blurbs as encyclopedia articles is a clear breach of NPOV. Capitalistroadster 06:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also it is not from a commercial copyright provider, which makes money from the content that has been copied. -- Kjkolb 02:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears now to be a copyvio I would have to say delete. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If
copyvio then Delete (speedy ?) --Simon Cursitor 08:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Eusebeus 12:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no no on the copyvio or else I might have said keep.Gator (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 02:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as functionally unverifiable after the election has finished.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per
FCYTravis 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Tarhukia

Delete Article makes all sorts of claims, provides no supporting evidence. Only 1 edit (besides mine) from an anonymous user, so not likely to be high on anybody's list of articles to maintain.TheRingess 03:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was
(operator) 17:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.
e ] 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Unverified and unencyclopedic. Borders on speedy.
FCYTravis 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedied - "Tarhukia" had ONE Google hit, and it was a Wikipedia list. I expect something that alleges blog notability to have eleventy billion hits, given the way blogs are now.
FCYTravis 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per Cyde's astute observation.
FCYTravis 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Tempus (band)

This article has many anon editors, and I can't tell if there's a reasonable point to revert it to. I think possibly all the authors are just having fun with Wikipedia. Unless notability can be established for this band, the article should be deleted.-Mr Adequate 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the article at Tempus (disambiguation) should be removed if the article is deleted.-Mr Adequate 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article is mangled crap. Even the "references" are just links to porn sites. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, borderline..seem to meet
Rx StrangeLove 04:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Screw 32

Doesn't seem to meet
WP:MUSIC criteria for notability; notability is not claimed. Tempshill 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Yet another NN bunch of amateurs thinking they're making profound statements about capitalism. The JPS 10:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Wezzo 15:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come on. If you checked AllMusic, if would tell you that they released two albums (one on Fat Wreck Chords). Punkmorten 16:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another nn band trying to advertise.Gator (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They're not nn, they meet
WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 15:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete as they seem to *almost* meet our indie release category (two albums on *notable* indie labels)... If Wingnut was notable (aka, had a good roster, a major influence, etc..... right now, Wingnut looks very much like a short-lived 90's indie label, maybe defunct now), maybe keep, or if
WP:MUSIC criteria. Ronabop 09:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Ronabop. They have two albums but not on major labels, fails
WP:MUSIC on the information given. Stifle 10:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep I'm pretty sure they do meet wp:music, but they appear to be defunct and there doesn't even seem to be enough information out there to make this into a respectable stub. Flower party■ 20:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given by Flowerparty, funnily enough. They may or may not have brieflyt scratched the surface of notability, but since they now appear to be no more they become, to a large extent, unverifiable.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Punkmorten. Recorded notable bands deserve to be here -- JJay 11:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bra boys

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.

Non notable street gang jmd 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful information as the (predominantly 'Anglo') Bra Boys group are reportedly in discussions with the (predominantly 'Lebanese') Comancheros bikie gang in order to bring an end to the recent racial violence seen in Sydney

Merge - It sounds to me like they're involved in this latest scuffle in Sydney, Australia over Muslim race relations. I say merge this into a relevant article on the rioting. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep - they're notable enough. See this SMH article, where they are involved in negotiations with Muslim leaders. Borofkin 01:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable and notable especially as some have blamed them for involvement in the rioting although they are denying it. 12,000 hits for Bra boys including the Sydney Morning Herald [10] 73 Google News hits for "Bra boys" see [11]

Even namechecked in "Surf's Up: The Girl's Guide to Surfing" see [12]. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable.--Russell E 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

?? - I can't tell you why, but it just doesn't sit comfortably with me. I bet you could come up with 1,000+ Australian gang names if you tried hard enough. On the other hand, that their name is cited in various sources is irrefutable. Keep - after reading the latest edits to the article I've changed my mind - notable enough.
ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - the article is going to get a whole lot bigger in the next few days because of the riots. - G^t 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lankiveil 06:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Keep sadly. I'd be glad never to hear of them again, but I'm not that optomistic. Regards,
Ben Aveling 06:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Their significance is largely as an example of media hype. The article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub, based on the depth of media coverage despite the attention. --Zigger «º» 06:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unsupported inflammatory allegation from the article. Had that allegation influenced any previous opinion here? --Zigger «º» 06:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on the riots. Won't be notable outside this context.
Harro5 06:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Dont merge - The Bra Boys 'involvment' in the riots are questionable --bacco007 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The group/gang has been in the media a bit recently and I wanted to read about them but was disapointed that wikipedia didn't have an article. Australian Story ran a programme on Koby Abberton, the founder(?) of the group a few weeks ago. He is very famous in world surfing circles apparently but was charged with murder and manslaughter. He was recently acuitted of those charges but found guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice (or perverting the coure of justice or something - don't quote me). Then, just this week, we're hearing about them again in the context of these events in Sydney. I think they are notable enough to have a TV documentary made about them, and are notable because of Koby Abberton's involvement. (There should probably be an article created about Koby Abberton too). -- Adz 06:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koby was not the founder, and was not charged with murder and manslaughter. --Zigger «º» 07:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His older brother was charged with murder of a founding member of the Bra Boys Anthony Hines and was later acquitted. Koby Abberton is being charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice see [13].

Keep, should not be confused with the riots issue--A Y Arktos 07:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I'd really like to see it expanded somewhat. It still offers only a limited explanation of who they are and why they are important. It doesn't mention what they do (other than surf).--
talk 07:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per other votes; important enough to deserve an article though expansion is certainly required. - Wezzo 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can anyone add some significance to the article, or perhaps it should be merged into Maroubra, New South Wales? --Zigger «º» 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nn as of one week ago, but not anymore. Things change.Gator (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This gang is well known, and is frequently mentioned in Sydney media. 203.9.33.2 07:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* They're even pretty well known here in the USA.

Keep I've been reading about the troubles back home and went Wikipedia to see who they are. reason enough to keep them. I have to agree that I was hoping to find out a lot more about them. I remember when I lived in sydney that the gangs in Maroubra had a fearsome rep. Steve

Comment (again). I've expanded the article to list what they're famous for in Sydney, at least in the popular media. If others think this can be the basis of a bigger article, I'll butt out. Hopefully Australian beach and surfer articles can also be expanded. --Zigger «º»

~~Keep~~ Merge with Maroubra. Not only notable due to their "suspected" involvement in Cronulla, but have been part of Sydney culture for a long time. Most Sydneysiders would of heard of the Bra Boys at one point or another. In fact, easily the most famous gang in Sydney. Chanlord 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite sources for any alleged involvement at Cronulla. For (unfortunately) more famous Sydney gangs, check out the "Milperra massacre". --Zigger «º» 15:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Hours earlier, about 200 men had assembled outside Lakemba Mosque - some armed with Glock pistols - and dozens more gathered at Campsie. They were preparing to travel to Maroubra Beach, where up to 300 locals, many armed with crowbars, waited for an arranged fight, according to "Bra Boys" at the beach."[14]

These events took place on Monday night and were heavily reported in the Sydney press. This was supposedly in retaliation for the events at Cronulla.
Sunny, Jai and Koby have made media appearances to contradict "supposed" involvement, as recently as yesterday's Daily Telegraph (14 Dec, pg 4). I doubt that the "Bra Boys" at the beach meant to suggest that a fight had been arranged by the group. This would be better discussed on the article's talk page, if anyone thinks it can be expanded beyond a stub. Should non-events be the basis of an article, despite excited media coverage? --Zigger «º» 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Bra Boys involved in Cronulla was non-existant and purely media hype. Perhaps an alternative can be to Merge the article with Maroubra, until such a time when more information is gathered about the gang. Amending vote Chanlord 01:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're not just another non-notable street gang. I had heard of them well before the last week's events. Dmharvey 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very significant players in the 2005 Cronulla riots. Cnwb 04:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable gang. Sarah Ewart 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are widely known in Sydney. It has also been in the papers for the last week. Jmd, if you are living in Australia, you must be ignorant or have your eyes closed, hands over your ears and shouting "lalalala" at the top of your voice. If you are outside of Australia, don't try to delete stuff that is not pertinent to you.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent

~~No name yet exists for this video game. This is just fan speculation. An article was already started at~~
~~Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell 4 anyway. Both of which may fall under crystal ball.~~ Since posting on AFD, it has been confirmed [15]. I performed a move/delete of Splinter Cell 4 to this page. Change vote to Speedy keep. K1Bond007 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete,
WP:NOT a crystal ball RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 22:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Its the official title of the Splinter Cell 4 now. Obviously the SC4 article needs to be moved here.
Thunderbrand 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.
e ] 00:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. If this goes, so should
Matt Yeager 01:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Shouldn't
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell 4 bemoved to Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell 4: Double Agent instead of here? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

It's just called Tom Clany's Splinter Cell: Double Agent. It doesn't use the number 4.
Thunderbrand 13:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete until the game is released the article is nothing more than a placeholder and speculation. Still have possibility of becoming vaporware. Peyna 13:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The name has been confirmed, and the
Splinter Cell 4 article has already been moved there. Mushroom 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The page is nothing but fan speculation as Ubisoft hasn't officially disclosed complete details of the game. Wiki doesn't need to become a GameFaqs board. TotalTommyTerror 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we delete 2008 Summer Olympics then? Isn't that speculation? We have even 2020 Summer Olympics. The game has an official site that is linked from the Ubisoft site and an official name (now confirmed). If we deleted this article we would have to recreate it in a few months. Mushroom 15:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because on the game's page the information there is completely fan-speculation. It's just what people have been conjuring up on fan forums as opposed to say, The Olympic Committee releasing details on an upcoming event. If Ubisoft had released any more official information on the game then I'd vote for a keep. TotalTommyTerror 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then we could just keep it and remove any non-official information. The article already references [16] which is official. And the Game Informer preview linked below can be used as a source. It can be improved, there's no need to delete it. Mushroom 10:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All information contained on the page is offical, most of which coming from press cuttings based on interviews with Ubisoft staff. The latest edition of Game Informer containing a preview of Double Agent is good evidence of this, along with the latest single player trailer for Double Agent. Scan of Game Informer, [17]. Latest game trailer, [18]--Factorylad 22:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article clearly states that it may contain "information of a speculative nature". This includes the title of the game, as well as plot details, etc... The game has been officially announced so there is no reason to delete the article at this time. SnakeSoldier 16:03 , 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Jedi6 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep additional slippery slope comparison. if we delete this, why not delete
Phil 01:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Name recently reveiled, appeared in various magazines. 70.224.93.190 03:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FFT Clan

It's a twofer - Clancruft *and* bandcruft all in one. Band has no releases and the clan has 116 Googles. Nuke it.
FCYTravis 01:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Pound with asteroids YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 04:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They say the FFT stands for
Fast Fourier Transform. Either way, delete!! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - cruftilicious. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, vanity. The JPS 10:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Band fails
WP:MUSIC (especially with hits that didn't chart), and gaming clans are otherwise non-remarkable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per everybody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the band has never released a song, and I don't see any evidence that the clan has ever competed in any organised tournament (which is after all what clans are supposed to do. I believe that clan articles are wikipedia-worthy, but only if they do what clans are actually suppose to do e.g. have competed in the CPL or other tournament which itself had a wikipedia article. Cynical 20:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with Cynical's reasoning. Well said! --Habap 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Krich 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete with a suggestion that we re-think the rules of
WP:MUSIC about what qualifies as a "half hour broadcast on a national radio" network, with maybe adding some notation or explanation that podcasting, and self-published internet radio, are problematic. Ronabop 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, off we go. Stifle 10:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magiran: All Iranian Magazine

An advertisement Bill 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexa says 147,220, which puts it into the top3 most popular farsi language websites. However, that's still not close for
WP:WEB and there's no other claim for notability, just an ad. Wikipedia isn't a web guide and anyone looking for that kind of trivia can look it up in alexa. - Bobet 01:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. If Alexia puts it into the top 3 most popular Farsi language websites, absent any information otherwise, that's worthy of keeping it. And why do you say advertisment? It looks like an entirely normal stub.--Prosfilaes 04:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.
e ] 01:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Horrible article lacking content. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 04:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Being a thin article now doesn't make the topic itself non-notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'd be happy to consider this notable, but the article lacks content. All it says is that it lists magazines and is searchable (like most other sitest). It really doesn't make any claims why the site should be deemed remarkable. I'm happy to reconsider if expanded. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be (and looks like) a mere advert for a webiste. Could be bonafide, but due to language disparity I cannot tell (anyway, it clears less googlehits [19] than my personal website). I say, judging by what the article looks like at the moment (a screen dump and a nondescriptive sentence), delete.--Ezeu 15:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -
talk 21:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Gag (BDSM). Owen× ☎ 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gag_snob

This doesn't seem to be a term in widespread use - only 127 hits on Google for example. The page appears to have been set up purely to rant about people who make such comments about gags on discussion boards. Mdwh 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Sorry, I really don't know enough about the subject area to know if this is made up or the real deal. We need to get some fetishist in here before we decide on the article. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gag (BDSM). I am somewhat familiar with BDSM terminology but hardly an expert. I have never seen this term before but it looks valid. — JIP | Talk 07:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above Renata3 00:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never heard this term before, with almost 20 years of SM experience. This seems to be a joke by someone with a POV. --Krich 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gag (BDSM), lest we have paddle snob, horseplay snob, etc. Ronabop 09:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ronabop. Stifle 10:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This term is used on forums. Bedroom Bondage's forum used it (Lorelei mentioned she was not a gag snob), and I see it used a lot in "small time" forums, such as AVGDID and Brian's Page (brianspage.com). It's common enough that I've seen it a lot. And yes, I am a bondage fetishist, so I am the type of person who would have experience.
comment This unsigned comment was by
Gag_snob page). I searched and could not find any mention of it on any forum, but even so - the fact that one or two individuals have used a made-up terminology does not make it ligitimate or note-worthy. It still appears to be a localized made-up term that almost no one in SM has ever heard or used. --Krich 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge I would assume. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gag+snob%22 yields plenty of results. Note the contexts its used in fit what the article describes, so I would imagine the article is telling the truth. --CGally81 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that plenty - I've certainly seen pages with many hundreds of results being proposed for deletion (can't remember off hand if they actually were). It really isn't that hard to get a hundred or so results at all - I mean, a pseuodnym I use and is unique to me gets 647 results, but I don't think that's worthy of an article! A piece of software I wrote gets 1,570 results, but it's yet to get a Wikipedia mention let alone an article (and rightly so). (Of course, Google hits isn't the only way of rating how widespread a term is, but I've not yet been persuaded of any other reason why this term is notable.)

Also to be exact, although the term exists and may be worthy of documenting, the information in the article is certainly incorrect (the article takes the way it would be used as a derogatory term, and presents that as fact - and claims like "has a difficult time being aroused by bondage imagery unless it contains a gag" look just like insults). I don't mind if the article stays - if so I'd delete most of what's there and document its usage as a derogatory term - but thought I'd propose for deletion here as it doesn't seem to be used much at all. Mdwh 20:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (8/1).
e ] 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Haun Saussy

Obscure, possible vanity, orphan Mecanismo 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the google test shows the wikipedia's article as the top reference and there are onlyh 20 articles listed. Besides, the page is orphan. Possible a poor vanity page. --Mecanismo 22:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is a real professor at Yale [20] with 3 books released. feydey 12:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 3 books passes
WP:BIO. Stifle 10:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.
e ] 01:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I don't see what there is to discuss, it sounds like he clearly meets
WP:BIO. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. -- JJay 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (but cleanup/expand). C'mon, stop the d**n anti-academic bias. He was Stanford chair with 3 solid books (now at Yale, but not chair). Admittedly, books read by narrow audiences, but apparently genuine contributions to human knowledge. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are similar articles too. The JPS 10:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I know very few tenured professors that haven't published at least this much. Peyna 13:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Professors at major research universities are notable. u p p l a n d 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed Realmz Echo Realm

Kobra's Realm (AfD discussion), Crossed Realmz 4 (AfD discussion), and this were created by VoodooKobra (talk · contribs) and are about xyr web site, xyr unreleased game, and a fictional place in xyr unreleased game respectively. As I noted in the first AFD discussion, everything about the game is written by the author xyrself. No-one else has published anything about it at all. There is no independent evidence, apart from the author's sole word (see also this edit and these edits), that the game even exists, let alone what the details of its geography are. Uncle G 01:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete together with other 2 Renata3 00:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

powerful vibrations should rip it apart Most links dead in this (and related) articles, seems like a total fantasy project. Ronabop 09:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, get going per Renata3. Stifle 10:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and burn the remaining bytes to prevent resurrection.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Kobra's Realm

This,
WP:WEB criterion. Creating anything but a web directory entry ("Kobra's Realm is a web site with domain name D that was registered by N on Y.") for this web site is original research and unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Uncle G 01:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
It's an article ABOUT a website. Why did you have to type all that BS? You're looking into it too much... if there's some BS technicallity here or there: FIX IT. Don't just delete it. That's censorship. Quit being so imperialistic! Kobra 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Anytime someone who is named after the website comes to its defense, I have to be skeptical. And it sounds like these guys didn't have an offsite backup plan at all (in one fire they lost everything). And they don't seem notable. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long live imperialism! Jasmol 21:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this mess Renata3 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete forked article. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Orlowski (journalist)

This is a verbatim copy of the existing Andrew Orlowski article with the text of the now-deleted article Wikifiddler inserted verbatim. It is possibly the most textbook case Wikipedia has ever seen of a bad-faith POV fork; DannyWilde (talk · contribs) did not want to abide by the consensus he thought the community might come to (which they did) to delete the contents of Wikifiddler, so he merged the contents to Andrew Orlowski. When that act was opposed, he took Andrew Orlowski (journalist), which should not have existed unless there was another notable Andrew Orlowski to differentiate from, and instead of making it a redirect, made it his own private version of the article, the way he wanted it. I have seen a number of POV forks in my time at Wikipedia, but never one so blatant, or so blatantly in bad faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WITHOUT MERGE per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Act per nom --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 01:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to deter wikifiddling. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't have a problem with Wikipedia being criticised, but this kind of bad faith POV bullshit has to stop. Reyk 06:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No gaming the system. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrew Orlowski, do not merge. Copy-pasting Wikifiddler to another article is trying to cheat its AfD process. — JIP | Talk 07:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No question on this one. --Krich 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
Chick Bowen 01:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Neier 05:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this fork. Stifle 10:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phaze II

Another unverifiable and non-encyclopedic gaming clan. So they participate in online games. Wow. Few relevant Googles. No assertion of broader interest. Nothing that makes them different from the eleventy trillion other clans in the universe.
FCYTravis 01:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 01:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with phazer and per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable.
Thunderbrand 13:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, as looking at their own forums, they seem to be pretty inactive. Nothing here asserts any notable, verifiable accomplishments that separate them from the eleventy trillion other clans in the universe. I think we should have articles on online groups, but this one just isn't very significant. --Habap 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another gaming clan... yawn. --
אריאל יהודה 00:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. --Krich 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phaze III = Delete Ronabop 09:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AnimalesSinHogar

Made by owner of organization (look at the username, it's something like [email protected]), and thus invalid. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello} 01:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Not-English novacatz 02:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babelfish translation: Animals Without Home are a civil association without aims of profit with the following objectives: To offer to information related to the well-being animal, to sensitize the society and to foment the responsible possession. To stimulate the left animal adoption. To obtain transitory homes for left animals, avoiding of that form the overload of the protectors. To make necessary campaigns of shelter harvesting, medicines and other articulos for the animals in street situation or that live in protecotras. To diminish the animal overpopulation by means of castrations in districts of low resources. Our main tool of communication: <site link> - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotion of non-profit organization. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be speedied Renata3 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mgm. Stifle 10:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty ct

Delete: Definitely unencyclopedic and possibly advertising.

Delete and quick. Renata3 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, advertising novacatz 02:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Although the thought of the guy in that pic having anything to do with software programming was hilarious. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7
e ] 01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to
WP:BJ. --Mareino 23:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete with a possible BJAODN. Not a speedy delete because it is not about a person. Stifle 10:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kundi

This is a pointless article and is spam. --King of Hearts 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like nonsense to me. novacatz 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've removed the nonsense and made a stub- looks like real Pashtun tribe, so Keep. -- JJay 02:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay. Punkmorten 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per JJay Dlyons493 Talk 17:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after the work JJay did on this. --Krich 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Punkmorten deserves credit too for cleaning up my first attempt. -- JJay 01:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good article on a good topic.Gateman1997 06:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, shall mature over a period of time. --Bhadani 16:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as re-written. Congrats to JJay & Punkmorten. -- JLaTondre 00:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiki

Website is non-notable. When I created a user account there I was user number 15 (!). Page was initially created by anon one month ago and not updated since. novacatz 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki it! Errr ... just kidding, delete. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. What's unclear about
Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine? -- Marcika 13:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and Marcika. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Krich 01:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marcika. Stifle 10:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Much of the core contect is on the Daily Show article already
Rx StrangeLove 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bill Clarey

Article about an intern at The Daily Show with Jon Stewart who committed suicide. Tragic, but not notable. Gets 1 google news hit. Renata3 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was added by 61.68.110.44 at the end of Renata's post above, I've moved it to here: Now he gets 3 pages of hits. IT MADE THE NEW YORK TIMES FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. the entire NYC TV community is talking about it. Turnstep 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn-bio Renata3 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't even hear about this news until I read it here, and I'm a pretty big Daily Show fan. Anyway, Merge into
Daily Show - Bill Clarey isn't notable as a standalone biography but the suicide of an intern is probably notable on the show's page. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep it, as tonight's show was dedicated to him, so it's helpful to have a page to find when searching.

After watching the show I searched his name and the article came up. It was informing, as I did not know who he was or what had happened when John Stewart dedicated the show to him.

Agreed, keep it. I saw the show was dedicated to him tonight and immediately did a wikipedia search for him.

Merge and redirect as per Cyde. I'm sure lots of people are going to be curious as to who he is after the Daily Show's dedication to him on the 13th; however, sadly, he isn't notable on his own. --Chris Love 04:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. As stated above. Duff 05:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I think we should redirect this to The Daily Show's page, or keep the article at least for a week, as it will be very useful to people searching for his name after the Daily Show airing. --User:fuchikoma

Merge and redirect Agreed, nice to be able to find something about him after seeing tonight's episode. (With the Howard Stern interview it will likely be reaired) --Duozmo

Merge and redirect Yes, heard about it when the show was cancelled and again in the epilogue when I watched it this evening. If it could be determined why then perhaps a link to the right article on causes of suicide might be worth adding. --Clem Holloman

Merge and redirect Agreed also, I immediately searched for it when i saw the show, keep for a week then relate to daily show page --null

Merge and redirect I also searched for his name after watching the show, agree with keep for a week then redirect to Daily Show. --
Mac4drew 12:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect after the interest has died down Say, a few days to a week.

Delete. If he killed himself as a result of something happening on the show, that would be notable, but we have no information as to this. If he killed himself due to problems from his own life, then sorry, it's not particular noteworthy.
e ] 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect He may not be notable on his own, but is certainly part of the history of The Daily Show. I, too, came to Wikipedia to find out who he was after watching The Daily Show of December 13. Haakon 19:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it I came looking after the dedication and found my answer. Appreciate it's existence, sort of an obituary as well. Wouldn't fit as well as a merge, but should be a link from the Daily Show page.

Keep it The detail in the article is difficult to find elsewhere. I, for one, am curious to know why he died. Based on the article and his interests and the "Moment of Zen" dedicated to him, I wonder if he was gay. It's interesting that the show dedicated to his death also said some positive things about South Africa's decision to allow gay couples to marry. I caution that I have no knowledge of Bill Clarey's sexual orientation, but gay suicides of young people are very common, and if it does turn out to be the case, it could be a public reminder of this. (Matthew Sheppard's death initially was not focusd on his sexual orientation either.) In any event, I'd keep it, with a link to and from the Daily Show. And I, for one, will check it periodically to see if anyone comes forward with additional information.

Comment to the two anonymous "Keep it" votes above: You cannot vote anonymously. Please sign in to your users and sign your votes if you want them to count. Haakon 08:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Merge Google is up to 472 hits on a quoted name [21]. Keep if more data rolls out, merge if this is all we can find out and source. Ronabop 10:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it It seems to be a topical issue in New York at the moment. It apparently really upset alot of the staff at TDS because he was so popular there.((User:Mkelleher))
Comment down to 195 hits on google now, FWIW. Ronabop 09:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This search query results in 299 hits on Google. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect pertinent content to The Daily Show, as per other voters. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's obviously useful to a lot of people (such as myself) looking for more information on this guy after seeing the Daily Show dedication. Wikipedia was the first source I looked to. The fact that this article is here, that this many people are interested in reading it, is enough evidence that it's of some pertinence and use. People who aren't interested in it, don't have to read it. Ario 20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep young people in particular are trying ti find out who this guy is. (Mkelleher 22:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per above. zellin t / c 19:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I see much of the data from this article has already been incorporated into the main Daily Show article anyway. 68.233.42.115 23:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. If people are really concerned about this, merge is somewhere in a few months or renominate for AfD. Turnstep 23:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge This can be considered a notable time in TDS history. I believe that this is the first time that they cancelled a scheduled show for any reason. Jon dedicated a Moment of Zen to the man, for chrissake. He never does that for anyone unless he wants to offend them. Keep it or merge it in. ACEBROCK (NO ACCOUNT)--4.131.134.166 03:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, per others.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or Merge This is not a memorial, this is TDS history. (Mkelleher 22:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

--Bad carpet 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flee the seen

Fails
WP:MUSIC - Renata3 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Renata3 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn, fails
WP:MUSIC. -- Marcika 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Love the band, and these guys are friends of mine, but I do have to say that they don't meet the criteria of having a Wikipedia entry (yet). Not to mention, whoever wrote this article has no idea what they're talking about... —the preceding
unsigned comment is by 207.192.213.5 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete band vanity, how many of these do we have a day? Stifle 10:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with all above. --Bad carpet 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Ozarka

Not encyclopedic, this is a
vanity page. --Aude 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete ---Aude 02:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. - orion eight (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - marked as a7.
Chick Bowen 03:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to
e ] 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Thewhackedband

Non-notable band. Google for the 'definitive' album gives no relevant hits. Looks like vanity article novacatz 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, vanity. The JPS 10:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Googling for the band gives me a hit for Garageband.com which has the exact same copy of their bio. Clearly a non-notable garage band. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note, is also copyvio. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio tagged and bagged. Closing AfD.
e ] 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Division theorem aka Division algorithm

Not worth keeping --Quarl 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that's not how we name articles. Gazpacho 04:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bad name, POV fork (of math, mind you), all redundant (and wrong) information. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- rambling nonsense. Reyk 06:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inconsequential fork of Remainder, not even worth a merge/redirect. --Zetawoof 08:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first half of the article is on Remainder, as has been pointed out; second half is complete nonsense. Pierremenard

Delete - a superior article on the same topic exists at division algorithm. B.Wind 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did the Chicken...?

NN
Bachrach44 02:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Croat Canuck 03:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... cross the road? To avoid being deleted. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 07:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this, but suggest making this title a redirect to Joke, which is where Why did the chicken cross the road? redirects to. Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then recreate as redirect to Joke, per Smerdis of Tlön. Saberwyn - 21:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Asked to revisit. Although available worldwide, has to be ordered through a small number of websites. No 'real-world' sales points internationally, and none in the handful of random United States I checked. 14,700 Google hits for "Why did the chicken...?" game -"cross the", of which 330 are unique, and after the first page or two it degenerates into forum posts and vaiants of the "Why did the chicken do this? gag. No change in vote. Saberwyn - 20:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's just not an online game, it's a commericially available game and world-wide available as indicated here. It does need de-spamming, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Availability doesn't translate into notability, however. It needs to be deleted so someone can provide a spam-free version of the article if the game's notability can be objectively demonstrated. B.Wind 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bearon Von's

Delete. Fabricated (unverifiable). [22] –M^T 02:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Computerjoe 19:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless meaningful external references can be provided. Edgar181 21:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Renata3 00:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

South Korean Communications Overview

Wikipedia is not a howto guide
Bachrach44 02:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Daniel Case 04:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki. Is there an Etiquette wikibook? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys for not notifying me so I can edit this page, now I must edit AND re-submit instead of a simple edit online. Please use the tools to notify authors to edit pages instead of deleting pages within minutes of their posting. -Adam
I'm not sure exactly how you think this process works, but there's two things you should be aware of. First of all, the page in question has not currently been deleted. All discussions for deletion are left open for 7 days for people to discuss, vote, and revise. If you revise the page such that it meets wikipedia criteria and policy, people who have previously voted for deletion may even be inclined to change their votes. Secondly, the AFD tag at the top does nto prevent you from editing the article in the same way you would have. The only thing we ask is that you not delete the box at the top which indicates to the viewer that the article is being discussed for possible deletion. Lastly, you can click on "watch" at the top of any page and any changes to that page will appear in your watchlist. --
Bachrach44 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Mgm. (Wikibooks has said previously (in a similar article for Japan) that they don't want these. It could possibly go to Wikisource though.) Stifle 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_Arcand_Group

Non-notable spam cruft novacatz 02:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, attempt at marketing. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than advertising. Edgar181 21:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising, side note: they are not even well known in the Orlando area. Das Nerd 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possible copyvio. Stifle 10:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what copyvio? preceding commment comes from same poster who created article

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to
e ] 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Lady in the Water

I look forward to seeing the movie when it comes out, but
Bachrach44 02:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep This movie already has an imdb entry [23], currently in post-production (which means it could do with an entry even if it didn't have a distro date--which it does[24]--July 21st. Perhaps we should just delete 2006 if we throw this out.

Speed Keep and Redirect to Lady in the Water. The article is well-sourced. Carioca 04:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Verifiable information exists on this but article is speedy deletable at the moment for little or no content. Capitalistroadster 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirected to Lady in the Water. That oughta handle it; before blanking, the article didn't appear to say anything that the proper one didn't. --Zetawoof 08:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Zetawoof. Capitalistroadster 08:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per others. Scoo 09:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect looks fine. The other article has enough verifiable info to be kept. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. If you're oppsed to an A7, how 'bout an A1? -R. fiend 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Model 38

Non-notable band. Web presence is slim; cannot find them on AMG. Merovingian 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and expand A7. --
Shazaam! - <*> 03:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete NN The JPS 10:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1. Stifle 10:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet
WP:Music

It was tagged for speedy and I speedied it. Was well within the spirit of the law if not the letter. If you disagree, sue me. -R. fiend 19:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied on what grounds? An A7 for a band? It's wrong to misuse speedies. -- JJay 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Like I said, sue me. -R. fiend 20:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astrobhadauria.com

Looks to be original research by a guy from the site in question. The site isn't notable with no alexa rank and google shows no pages linking to it. If someone can get anything useful out of it, please tell.

Delete - Bobet 03:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ---Kyknos 16:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Edgar181 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Covered in Dust

Does not pass standards of
Chick Bowen 03:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and expand A7. --
Shazaam! - <*> 03:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete band vanity --
אריאל יהודה 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and do not expand anything. -- JJay 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and expand A7 per Jeffrey. Stifle 10:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sentiment, folks, but please let us not debate policy on AfD subpages. Thanks.
Chick Bowen 15:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Maria Magdalena Preiner

Delete. Non-notable or non-existant person Catbar (Brian Rock) 03:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is irrelevant. This person is unverifiable. The article is one sentence long, and from that sentence I am unable to find out who the subject of the article actually is. My hypothesis is that some teenager in Winden, Germany, is in love. Speedy delete. Uncle G 04:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unverifiable and nn-bio as per above. -- Marcika 13:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A1 and A7 JoJan 19:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CustomerVision

This article was speedied thrice as spam, but these speedies weren't really valid, and were reversed by
WP:DRV. Since two people actually deleted it, it seems reasonable to give consideration to the deletion option here. The del review debate is here. I do not find a great many Ghits nor anything on Google News, but apparently they serve some clients you've probably heard of; whether they import notability from that or not is for AfD. -Splash^talk 03:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Searching, I find things that look independent, being located on web sites that have no immediate connection with the company, but that all have first-person statements ("We often start out helping a customer ...", "Our Solutions enable content creation ...", "We believe ...") somewhere. I cannot find any published works about this company that are from sources other than the company itself. There are no independently sourced books, consumer reports, "in depth" magazine articles, news coverage, or journal articles. The
WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. There is no way to write more than a business directory article here. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Delete. Uncle G 03:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Uncle G. android 79 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uncle G. Xoloz 04:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete was redirect --Gbleem 18:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) On the talk page I suggested redirect to wiki software. Kinda like redirecting kleenex to tissue.--Gbleem 04:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary,
WP:CORP criterion for having become genericized. Uncle G 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't actually look up kleenex obviously. I was just thinking someone hearing about CustomerVision might want to see wikisoftware. Why not put in a redirect? --Gbleem 05:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Putting in redirects for every company in existence would make Wikipedia into a business directory by the back door. Uncle G 12:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Oops I voted more than once. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep assuming tht it is a notable company, it could stand to be written in English (not marketing speak). DeathThoreau 18:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uncle G. Stifle 10:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entry apears to be nothing more than advertising a product. Ambix 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my original entry for CustomerVision. Please review and consider the hopefully much improved version. I am trying to quickly learn how to craft an article that meets the community standards and I would appreciate a chance to get this right. I have tried to use other entries in the same "List of wiki software products" as a guide. Also CustomerVision is both the company name and the name of the software and I've tried to focus the article on the nature of the software. bkeairns

Delete, Non-notable and advertisement. Deletion Review participants, please see my comment here, thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was convert to disambiguation page.
e ] 17:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Rainbow Road

Article is likely as large is it'll ever be. And I generally dispute the idea that an individual track from Mario Kart is notable. Locke Cole 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mario Kart and Delete. —Locke Cole 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. To finish a merge and retain the edit history, one needs to redirect. Merge and delete cannot be combined. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I didn't see the need for a redirect since it's doubtful many people will try to go directly to an article for Rainbow Road. As far as the attribution is concerned, if it becomes an issue the deleted history can still be viewed (with specific information viewable by an admin). In any event, I've modified my suggestion. —Locke Cole 11:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the
Kelly Fleming AFD, it was deleted and recreated as a redirect. Why the edit history wasn't preserved is my question... Hbdragon88 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Individual track? Either you haven't actually played Mario Kart or you've only played one game in the series. There are multiple Rainbow Roads (each of which is different) and each one is the final course of every game, as the article says. --Evice 04:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've played them all except for the newer Nintendo DS version (haven't had time). The article, as it is now, says all it's pretty much ever going to say. The content there would be more appropriate as a section in Mario Kart. —Locke Cole 04:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added Rainbow Road into the main Mario Kart article because I felt that it was significant enough to be put in the main article anyway. I also put it in because I was thinking about making Bowser's Castle as another article (but have been more hesitant since seeing this go up for AFD. Hbdragon88 05:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make this page a disambig. The phrase "Rainbow Road" is pretty notable, and gets over 100,000 google hits [25]. The page should deffinately mention and link to Mario, but I don't know if that merits it's own page. A couple others that should deffinately be included are the song by Joan Baez [26] (just link to her and/or the album if no article is written about the song) and the book [27]. Blackcats 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good research. Uncle G 02:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig per Blackcats. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig as above.--Ukdan999 23:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expand. Perhaps a listing of each Rainbow Road track from each game, with a mention of what was notable about it (or something like that)? Maxistheman 02:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig per Blackcats. Stifle 10:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig. Ditto. SFT | Talk 06:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig as per above. Agree with Uncle G, nice work! —Locke Cole 06:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig seems like a good idea to me! --ParkerHiggins 10:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Against Sith

This looks like a non-notable web group. I count five active members, and the group gets less than 600 google hits. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The group may get less than 600 google hits, but there are few people playing this game currently, as it is a "classic". more than five active members thank-you. and its forums at http://www.newjedix.com/jas serve as a hub for several groups of this specific gaming community. from the forum stats: Number of posts: 726 Posts per day: 3.37 Number of topics: 106 Topics per day: 0.20 Number of users: 36 Users per day: 0.79
the group IS active, and would like to be accessable to more people who have an interest in this game as it is increasingly diificult for newcomers to find gaming groups in this game as "Zone.com" the original multiplayer hub when the game was released was bought out by Microsoft and the websites support of the game was dropped. I believe this is worth keeping on the wiki, as a service not to the group, but simply to people looking for gaming communities of this game. Colt 38 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, according to the consensus developing at
Wikipedia:Websites, a web-related article should meet certain criteria to be included as a Wikipedia article. Firstly, it should be the subject of at least national-level media attention, which, although may be there, I am having trouble finding. Secondly, a forum or group must have 5,000 plus active members, or have a significant impact on the wider community; by your admission you only have 36. Thirdly, the website must have an Alexa rating of 10,000 or better. The domain that hosts your clan's page (at clubs.battlestats.com) rates in at over 4 million. Your forums (at http://www.newjedix.com/jas/) just don't even rate. You're all probably a bunch of very nice people, but I just don't think an encyclopedia-level article can be written about you guys. Delete - Saberwyn - 09:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Saberwyn's crushing attack. Advice to Colt 38: move into your own userspace before your article is deleted. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Saberwyn. Have fun playing the game, guys. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Saberwyn. DeathThoreau 18:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Saberwyn. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Master Saberwyn. Croat Canuck 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Darth Saberwyn... B.Wind 17:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Thinking

This reads like a get-rich-quick grow-your-our-business marketing/motivational pitch. Fplay 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure if we looked hard enough, it'll turn out to be a copyvio anyway. Either way, exterminate. The JPS 10:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Acronym cruft. The article doesn't acknowledge that
LASER is actually an acronym, so ... delete! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable neologism. DeathThoreau 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And also, it's incorrect. Unless laser thinking operates in a vacuum, it will diffuse like a flashlight beam also. Just over a longer distance.

Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Mo0[talk] 06:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote tally was:

21 delete -- 55.26%

10 keep (8 keep + 2 keep/merge) -- 26.3%

5 merge (3 merge + 2 keep/merge) -- 13.1%

2 keep/merge -- 5.26%

List of The Daily Show correspondent titles

This article was deleted in
WP:DRV was concerned that there might have been more particpation if this were re-listed (though note there is no quorum for AfDs). So here we are: the orignial nomination read: "Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful.".-Splash^talk 03:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Link to closed DRV discussion --- Charles Stewart 19:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful." jucifer 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the most notable titles to
Daily Show; some, not all, of these segments are memorable within the show, as per WP coverage of SNL. Xoloz 04:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep; it's fancruft, but that doesn't make it unusual - Guettarda 04:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could be useful for someone. -- JJay 05:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I pity that someone. --Calton | Talk 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let them know. -- JJay 22:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This list is referred to by several articles, so keeping it would be the easiest solution. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, it is listed by two: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. --- Charles Stewart 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ludicrous fan-cruft. I love the show, but this is a running gag that could be generated by a computer (Subject: "Media" Output: "Senior Media Correspondent"). Utterly pointless list. --Calton | Talk 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. About as useful to fans and others as lists of who has been reading the news on television each and every day. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge into Daily Show if you have to.
t c 14:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOT an indiscrimante collection of information, for the reason articulated very clearly by Sjakkalle. If there were something interesting about some of the entries in the list, then that can be mention in a "Trivia" section of the main article on the show. We don't need an information-free collection of newsreaders' names. (Note that although I nominated, that was procedural.) -Splash^talk 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete A good short list of examples appears in the Daily Show article, but if the list page could be improved: remove the redundant titles, that is, list each title only once, I might be convinced to change to a weak keep. D-Rock 14:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
Daily Show space, i.e. Daily Show/List of correspondent titles. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: There is no "Daily Show space". Sub-pages are a bad thing. They are sometimes used for structural reasons on project pages but we have intentionally disabled their use in the article space. See Wikipedia:Subpages#History of subpages for more. Rossami (talk)

Delete. A few mentions of memorable titles are appropriate in the main article. Attempting to create a comprehensive list of every such title is beyond the scope of even a paperless encyclopedia. This list is so large (and will continue to get larger as long as the show continues) and the contents so trivial that the list can not be effectively protected from subtle vandalism such as the introduction of plausible but inaccurate information. Yes, in theory it could be protected. But in practice, we have a continual shortage of informed and responsible editors. "Merge and redirect" is, in my mind, unnecessary since the contents of this article came from the main article. History of the original attribution is already preserved there. Rossami (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concerns, but if "likely target of subtle vandalism" was a deletion criterion, we'd have an awful lot of deleting to do. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The standard is not "likely target" of vandalism but whether the article will draw enough informed editors to protect it from the inevitable vandalism.
verify recent contributions and are able to quickly find and revert the vandalism. Rossami (talk)

Delete - I listed it the first time, and my opinion hasn't changed. One quick question, did I screw up some policy somewhere that prevented the original VFD from getting listed in all the appropriate places? AFAIK, everything was done properly. Not sure why this is being relisted, other than someone being unhappy with the outcome. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The concensus of the Deletion Review discussion was that there was a good faith request for relisting to gather more participation in the debate. As far as I can see, you followed policy correctly but we allow exceptions from policy when the community thinks that might be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk)

Comment - There was no hint of criticism for the way you handled the AfD, only concern that no-one who edited the article's content participated in the AfD. We have one article editor so far in this AfD, so it's improved in that respect... --- Charles Stewart 19:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Phil Sandifer 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful." As he says. Pilatus 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's not have the "it wouldn't be found in Brittanica article. Given how Wikipedia has been under fire lately, don't you all think that gems of articles like this are really where Wiki shines?Moveapage 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
new user created since the discussion began. contributions

Delete or merge some examples into The Daily Show. Edgar181 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and return to sender. listcruft.Gateman1997 23:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 03:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. One of the more notable parts of The Daily Show is their parody of news correspondents, and this is basically that in a nutshell. karmafist 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless list that's basically just listing jokes that aren't funny in this context. Just about every day they come up with a new title for someone, based on what's currently in the news: "Senior Crips on Death Row Correspondent", "Senior Iraq Death-toll Correspondent", "Senior Wikipedia is Unreliable Correspondent", etc. No real value. Why not just make List of stuff on TV some of us thought was funny and put all lousy eggs in one basket? -R. fiend 06:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless, unencyclopedic list. Eusebeus 15:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this article really is crap. What is comes down to is a list of bad repetitive jokes made on a TV program. This has no place in wiki. It is total BS. jucifer 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That means Keep, right? -- JJay 01:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't like deleting obviously well-constructed articles, but the encyclopediac merits of the article that have been argued for are sufficiently slight that they do not outweigh the concerns raised by Rossami. --- Charles Stewart 15:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ridiculous fancruft. --DDG 20:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Juicifer. David | Talk 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering how thorough the first is right now, I have no worries about it becoming corrupted by vandals or falling out of use. Plus, these sorts of data-intensive articles are precisely Wiki's advantage over paper encyclopedias. --Mareino 23:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Listcruft. Wikipedia is not an undiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.--
nixie 12:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Smerge into
T
20:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this *is* encyclopedic. It's a completely verifiable collection of related information about a very important part of culture (a television show in this case). Turnstep 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Splash --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do find it notable and easily verifiable. 69.136.243.80 02:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above keep is myself... I somehow got logged out. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 02:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was boldly redirected to
e ] 17:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Win/Win

Appears to be a test page, original text copied verbatim from a copyrighted weblog entry and does not describe an actual theory Rcade 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mark it copyvio and take it to
WP:CV. either someone will write something good or itll be deleted anyway. BL kiss the lizard 04:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Boldly redirected to
t c 16:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Still in need of a rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Maria Gutierrez

This article was previously deleted
help desk lead to this deletion being reviewed. Some new information was found that may justify keeping the (restored) article e.g. [28] [29] [30]. -Splash^talk 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. The prizes look borderline notable, but ultimately a talented high-schooler looks non-notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and rewrite. The article is too poorly written, giving the impression that he's just one more un-notable kid in the world. It's not even up-to-date. Don Diego[[User talk:Don Diego|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 07:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Needs a rewrite and sources, though. Lupo 12:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The maths prizes are not a reason for inclusion, winning national grade/high school music competitions aren't either in my opinion. Solo performances in front of large international audiences might be, but I don't see nearly enough evidence for exceptional talent and fame as a prodigy on google. -- Marcika 13:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Vanity.
t c 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. This is the kind of problem I am talking about. The article is so poorly written that the importance of his achievements don't come through. He did not win a school competition, it was a nationwide competition, in all instances. What constitutes a prodigy, may I ask? Is it Google sources? If you want some more evidence, may I direct you to [31], which is a government archive. It clearly states in one section that President Arroyo awarded Gutierrez an Achiever Award. Personally, I think that for a single person to attract the attention of a president, in whatever nation, he has to be quite talented or skilled or notable or whatever word you'd like to use. I do not think this is a vanity article or anything similar. This kid is fast on the rise, and sooner or later, somebody's going to write him in here, whether you like it or not, so what's the use in deleting it? Don Diego[[User talk:Don Diego|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 15:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you could be
t c 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Not well written, but competing in the
International Math Olympiad as a 12-year-old is probably notable. Weak keep. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Rewrite the heck out of it While I don't like overacheivers as much as the next guy, they're here to stay. International awards, national prestige (you know, for a violinist) and all of that are notable. The article is rambling and needs to be fixed up. DeathThoreau 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks notable enough to be kept, so long as it is rewritten, and fast. I say give the boy a chance. Perhaps we give Don Diego around a week to write? And if it's still in shambles, then delete. {{User:JMBell/sig}} 08:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try my best, but I'm not the best of writers, and I only have limited information. Give me more time! Don Diego ^(Talk) 14:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When his career gets going, he can come back and write another vanity page. Eusebeus 15:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any editors from the Philippines chiming in on this? I hesitate to say that the Filipino violinist is nn because of relative lack of exposure to someone who could be quite notable in his country. Take five and see if his countrymen, if possible, can tell us about this person's notariety (or lack thereof). For every one page of promotion the Philippines disseminates in the international media, the United States puts out at least 20,000. If the article is kept, a rewrite is in order, but at least it's salvageable. B.Wind 18:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incredible vanity/fiction. Jake013 18:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (Racist ranting removed. Lupo 11:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Oh yeah, the original VfD nominator Jake013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No edits since October 18, and then comes back just for this racist rant? Gimme a break! Lupo 11:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's so racist in saying that I don't believe that a 15-year old can do math and music and come from the Philippines at the same time. It's a fact of life that even competent adults, much less teens, cannot balance their time so that they can study two entirely different fields and still be good at it. And I do not know anybody talented from the Philippines, which I think is currently embroiled in a corruption scandal, correct? I simply cannot begin to comprehend how a "prodigy" can come from such an un-nurturing country. And even with proof of his "achievements", I'd still be very skeptical. Jake013 13:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably notable, as per B. Wind. Wellmann 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lulu. Stifle 10:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another
Ivan Cherevko? Grue 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I think not, otherwise he wouldn't have all these decent sources. That's what I think. Don Diego ^(Talk) 14:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Deaththoreau. Sp@rkplug 13:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. I happen to know Master Gutierrez personally, and I think he does deserve an entry, after all he's done (though it is in dire need of rewriting). I don't think it would be fair to cite a lack of sources as proof of non-notability. After all, some of the articles written in the Philippines aren't online, and some are real old or have been erased from archives (which happened to some reviews I've been looking for), so it wouldn't be fair saying that a lack of Google sources justifies his non-notability. While it is true taht he still has much to achieve, it is also true that so far, he has already achieved much. Chosen One 16:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
New reference. (Philippine Star) Chosen One 17:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. Usually people write vanity articles themselves, or at least about themselves. As far as I am aware, Mr. Gutierrez has done neither. And I have yet to see his defending comments on this page, if, as you claim, he is the original author of this abomination. Chosen One 10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rewrite per DeathThoreau and Chosen One. H.J.Potter 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Neutrality. Jamie 04:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Life date

Neologism, completely not worth moving to Wiktionary. Renata3 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Renata3 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnogog

NN band. Jamie 04:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity, NN The JPS 10:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bandity. No AMG entry, only a MySpace page.
e ] 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more random bands Stifle 10:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Likos

This ammounts to a project announcement by the Wikipedian who wrote the page. Fplay 04:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google search for likos linux turns up nothing relevant except Wikipedia and a brief mention on what appears to be the article creator's blog [32]. The article states "Website: In Development". -- JLaTondre 04:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If I had a dollar for every proposed Linux distribution I would be able to afford the 540 pc. Craftsman toolkit from Sears. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Column (journalism)

Dictdef Jamie 04:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --
אריאל יהודה 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Transwiki and delete. Stifle 10:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Good topic for an article. -- JJay 11:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to
e ] 17:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Tony Cottrell

Nominating for deletion as
Forge World modelling company. Saberwyn - 10:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into
Forge World. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. --
talk) 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Andrew Lenahan. Movementarian 09:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per. Leave a redirect, natch.
t c 14:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge concur. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Andrew Lenehan. Stifle 10:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.
e ] 17:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Sebastian Wyclef

Biography of a non-notable musician from a band that does not appear to meet inclusion per
WP:MUSIC. I would have nominated for speedy delete per CSD A7, however I took the assocaiation with the band The Heroin Addicts as a claim of notibility. The band is also undergoing the AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heroin Addicts). Movementarian 04:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete but merge content into The Heroin Addicts if latter survives AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn musician from an nn band. Stifle 10:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Big boy tomato

Fails
WP:MUSIC as far as I see. Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Yup. Delete.
t c 16:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, according to the article, it has one member who is part of
e ] 18:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Howcheng's excellent analysis. Stifle 10:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by
User:FCYTravis. Jamie 06:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Main Page/Moral responsibility

wierd title, self ref and dicdef all in one go! delete! BL kiss the lizard 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. -
Mailer Diablo 06:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Phillip McLachlan

Biography of a non-notable musician from a band that does not appear to meet inclusion per
WP:MUSIC. I would have nominated for speedy delete per CSD A7, however I took the assocaiation with the band The Heroin Addicts as a claim of notibility. The band is also undergoing the AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heroin Addicts). Movementarian 04:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete but merge content into The Heroin Addicts is latter survives AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lulu. Stifle 10:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --
Interiot 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ani-pock.net

Delete, almost completely non-notable. Alexa pagerank has no data for it. Of all the Google searches I could think of, the most I could get was 147 hits.
Interiot 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I have 1.7 million hits though!

See also http://extremetracking.com/open;unique?login=pockyrev

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo tantrum

Non-notable band, no Allmusic entry, possible hoax elements. Band does have a Website at [33]. Klaw ¡digame! 04:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it. Delete --
Shazaam! - <*> 04:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Looks like they released one CD in 1995 [34] [35]. Despite the state of their website, I don't think it's a hoax, but they still may not meet
Interiot 05:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. How do we start a proposal for a WP:CSD rule for NN bands, in the same vein as {{
nn-bio}}? There certainly seem to be a lot of these.Jamie 10:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and go to Talk on WP:CSD and start a section. Leave message on my talk page if you do. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete ^ i'd back such a proposal... _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 10:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Merovingian 05:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digital death

Some hacking group, but I don't know how well-known they are outside of their circle. Merovingian 05:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be speedied under an expanded A7 - everyone aggrees A7 should be expanded, the language should just be changed, period. --
Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intertech Satellites

Advert for non-notable company. Found at most 715 google hits, though "Intertech Satellite" itself gets only 98 hits.
Interiot 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, advertisment Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Spondoolicks 15:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- JJay 11:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious Party

Band does not seem to be verifiable, at least not notable enough to be verified via Google; basically just a vanity garage band article Bumm13 05:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, band vanity. --InShaneee 05:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, especially since "there aren't many information about componentes" of the band. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bandity.
e ] 18:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lm-diagram

Original research, sadly (linguistics). Fplay 05:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research. I was confused, until I spotted the piped link to a User account. The JPS 10:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interesting, but original research. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gpl-violations.org

There's no reason why this web site should have its own article rather than being mentioned in GPL (if at all). Delete. Catamorphism 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then the correct thing to do would be to merge and redirect. I have no objection to that, but since I was the one who created it earlier today, I think it should stand as its own article, about a (by low wiki standards) notable group, so keep. Thanks, Sdedeo 06:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, not-notable. Make sure the URL is in the external links in
t c 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - the URL is now in the external links in
t c 15:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Proto. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep and expand --Kyknos 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge one or two sentences, maybe the link, with GPL. Jasmol 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Agree with Proto. Eusebeus 15:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks ok. -- JJay 11:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.
Fox 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

May Lee Yang

NN activist - 49 hits. Delete. --
Shazaam! - <*> 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. Borderline notability, if expanded might establish notability. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Notable, if barely.Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, looks like a little more work would get this article into the Minor Notable category. Word of advice, when searching for information to verify noteability, search also for '"May Yang" Hmong' (which will return info on two May Yangs, this one and another). KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so far below notability threshold you need binoculars. Eusebeus 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to
e ] 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Mugglenet.com

NN fansite. --
Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I don't exactly think it's non-notable. They have a podcast which is continuously in the most popular podcasts list on iTMS and they were involved in the red carpet premiere - as reporters and as people going in to see the premiere. Between The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet (which both work together on occasion) they have the large majority of the Harry Potter fan audience - which is not small! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
e ] 07:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Mugglenet. Capitalistroadster 08:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Redirect to MuggleNet. No Brainer. Jtmichcock 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recipe 7

NN Game in development. --
Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It will be notable, and this will be a great reference to its creation. --Nick H. 12:26, 13 December 2005 (EST)

Delete per nom. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : AfD tag removed by User:Nickmunstr (apparently Nick H., above). Please do not remove AfD tags while the AfD discussion is in progress. Humansdorpie 23:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Regforafd 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "It will be notable" = "It is not notable now". "This will be a great reference to its creation" = "This is being used to publicise it".
[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Adams

NN racer and web designer. --
Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. vanity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity The JPS 10:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wish we could speedy, but it makes too many claims. Jamie 10:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.
Rx StrangeLove 05:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Daniel Bard

NN baseball prospect. Delete --
Shazaam! - <*> 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy as {{
nn-bio}}/CSD A7 Jamie 10:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non notable. Jasmol 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wait till he's drafted. There are too many "prospects" in baseball that never see the major leagues. --
אריאל יהודה 00:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I updated the article to assert notability. Bard is projected by reputable baseball organizations to be among the top five or ten draft picks in next year's major-league draft. As such, he is currently one of the most notable college baseball players in the U.S. Please reconsider based on the revised article. Sawney 06:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When he gets his first big league AB, you can try again. Eusebeus 15:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia requires
Class AA. B.Wind 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. - There are plenty of players who never played in the majors who are notable. Brien Taylor, drafted No. 1 overall by Yankees comes to mind. (Note: Unsigned edit by User:Santvenk)-Colin Kimbrell 17:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both of these statements are simply incorrect. According to
Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies
, the following may be included in Wikipedia (italics added):

"Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States."
Thus, there is no specification that only major leaguers may be included in Wikipedia.
I'm not sure where the Class AA reference came from; Bard has never played in the minors. (The Cape Cod League, referenced in the article, is an amateur league.)
The original article, which I had nothing to do with, didn't particularly make a case for notability. I came across the article while scanning AfD and felt that it was an easy matter to improve the article to show it belongs in Wikipedia. Anyone who takes the time to do even a little Googling will realize that Bard is considered one of baseball's elite college players. His awards, play, and reputation among major-league scouts, front offices, and organizations such as Baseball America confirm this. Barring injury, he will likely be among the first several players chosen in the 2006 major-league draft, and he'll receive a signing bonus of likely one or two million dollars in addition to his salary. Nonnotable baseball players simply don't happen upon this type of situation.
Bard, in fact, has already been drafted once; the New York Yankees drafted him as a high-school pitcher in 2003, but he elected to attend college instead. So if having been drafted is your criterion for inclusion, he's already done that. If verifiability is your thing, every last fact in the article has, as its source, one of the accompanying links. Sawney 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Playing at the top professional level is one way for an athlete to get over the notability bar, but not the only way. Bard's awards and honors are, in my opinion, enough to establish him as a notable amateur. That said, creating an article for every player ever drafted is an unreasonably broad standard. -Colin Kimbrell 17:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. There is a chance that he will would never play in the Majors. We can't create articles on every amatur or minor league players. Until he makes the major leagues we should not have a article on him. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would argue that point on the general case, as well as the specific one. Someone like Kip Bouknight is unlikely to ever play in the majors, given that he's a 26-year-old putting up middling numbers at AAA, but I'd support an article on him for his college accomplishments, which include the Golden Spikes Award and the Rotary Smith Award. To cite a similar example from a different sport, athletes Clint_Frank and Nile Kinnick (among others) are in Wikipedia despite never playing sports at the professional level, because both received prominent collegiate honors (i.e. the Heisman Trophy). -Colin Kimbrell 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:BIO allows for prominent college athletes. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Seems like another in the series of sadly misguided AfD noms. -- JJay 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One doesn't need to be in the Major Leagues to be notable. He's part of a major US university and distinguished himself within that realm. Jussenadv 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spinach artichoke dip

Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, even though I love the stuff. Can't make an article of every recipe.
T
16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete WP is not a cookbook. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recipe. Isn't there a project on Wikibooks for this?
[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Drini as CSD A1.

Ringgold high school marching band

NN marching band. Delete --
Shazaam! - <*> 03:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Could we merge this level of info into the related school article (which doesn't seem to exist)? Would we want to? Delete as a bunch of kids who play instruments, with no claim to fame. Saberwyn - 09:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question... Would
WP:MUSIC apply here? Saberwyn - 09:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

First choice, Delete. Second choice, move to
WP:MUSIC, altho' I'm not sure that should be applied to HS bands. Garfield and Roosevelt HS Jazz bands are probably notable (at least if any HS bands are), but not per WP:MUSIC. 24.17.48.241 10:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm working on the article. There's a lot more to come... with over 50 years of history. I can understand the fact that it needs improvement. But, please don't say that's it's a bunch of kids who play instruments with no claim to fame. That's just a little rude, don't you think?

Jsu5198m 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see from your user page that you were a part of this group in high school. Although there is no official policy about such things, a good rule of thumb is that you probably shouldn't create articles that you are personally involved in - whether it's an article about yourself or a group/club you were in. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if
WP:MUSIC doesn't apply, I can only imagine about 10-20 high school bands nationwide could justify stand-alone articles. Should be - at most - a one-paragraph mention in the high school article. But I'm not even really a fan of that. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Article has been blanked by Jsu5198m, who created it and did virtually all the editing on it. Would I be correct in interpreting this as an indication that the user would prefer to have the article deleted without further unpleasant discussion? All of the material in the article would be perfectly appropriate for Jsu5198m's home page. It is also possible for a user to create "subpages" simply by typing "User:Jsu5198m/band" into the "Go" box. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet
WP:SCH proposal.Gateman1997 19:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LUElinks

Delete--68.253.230.111 20:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC) NN website. Delete. --
Shazaam! - <*> 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: POV fork. Not the article, mind you ... the entire site is a POV fork of
Gamefaqs.com --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as recreation of e ] 07:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Duh, maybe I should actually *read* the article first. Still, delete per nom.
e ] 07:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Site is only accessible by members, making this article original research and unverifiable. —
Cryptic (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unverifiable, and not notable even if it's real (earlier versions have said it doesn't exist). Doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the main GameFAQs article. Has been deleted 8 times before, though the content was different (most were A1 speedies). Delete per
WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Starblind the entire "does not exist" thing is a long running joke between GameFAQs and LUELinks.Toffile 05:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - great website, but not notable enough for a wiki entry. You might want to protect it to...as someone will probabaly remake it for a 10th time.Toffile 05:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable - Tεx τ urε 17:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - It has had a large enough influence to have its place upon Wikipedia, and its influence will only grow, not shrink. It is worth keeping. Mystalic 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit.--Toffile 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable; it has thousands of members. We must share information about it. Cowpowder 21:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has 8 edits. --Toffile 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article just needs to be cleaned up. A lot. Toad King 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. --Toffile 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect from recreation. -Sean Curtin 06:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nah, I'd say it's a notable site, even if it is closed registration. Yes, it does exist. And I'm sure there are people who go to it who are also Wikipedians, it's difficult to verify anything about it unless you're a member of LL itself. It's probably the most comprehensive links database on the net, even if it is a wee bit hard to get on to, and it is large enough to make a contribution to the internet's over all culture. And before anyone puts a snide little note below this post, I know I haven't made many edits. Thank you for noticing, and have a nice day. LupusCanis 19:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has 17 edits since (apparent) ergistration in May 2005. 2 in article space. --Toffile 01:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. mikka (t) 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am an individual expressing my opinion. --Statikeffeck 18:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has 6 edits.--Toffile 01:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Gtrmp's "delete and protect" Hbdragon88 01:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Aaron Hobbs

NN author to be (?). --
Shazaam! - <*> 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Wait until his books become the next Harry Potter, and then we can have him. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put him out of his misery. The JPS 10:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as {{
nn-bio}}/CSD A7 Jamie 10:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Speedy but good luck to him with his future writings. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Homey 16:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Nutter

NN student activist. --
Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Not only is he a Ryan Nutter, he's a religious nutter! Har har! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as {{
nn-bio}}/CSD A7 Jamie 10:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not notable.--MONGO 11:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Almost an A7 speedy but not quite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hunter

If we're gonna include any person who founded a website that's only mediumsized, Wikipedia will soon enough have more than thousands of articles of websiteowners of whom little can be said. My opinion is that articles like this one are non-notable and should therefore be deleted. --
pour) 06:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. NN, vanity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete this and use as redirect to Jeffrey Hunter? BL kiss the lizard 07:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as {{
nn-bio}}/CSD A7 Jamie 10:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. This article is definetely not non-notable up to the point where CSD A7 would apply, as there is a certain claim of notability..I'd day --
pour) 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete NN and redirect to Jeffrey Hunter. 23skidoo 17:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Two of the three keep and expand votes were disregarded; the first one was counted, but probably shouldn't have been - it's inclusion was immaterial to the result. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: Cliff Clavin

nnbio on an unknown defunct band Reid A. 06:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. The JPS 10:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and
WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and expand I don't know much about the band, but the ideals and beliefs of the band go against the definitions of notability that Wikipedia uses. That does not mean that they are not a legitimate band. They put out several records, and their members are all still active in the folk punk scene. Superradjoe 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand As has been stated on behalf other Plan-It-X bands nomintaed for deletion, I do not believe that this is a significant enough deviance from those provisions to warrant deletion. The band has done an internetional tour, as well as countless US tours and released several albums. Those provisions actually work against a band like this who choose not to become "notable", so to speak, due to their personal beliefs about music and life. They are very prominently known among people in the underground punk scene and have a sizable national fanbase. thejer 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand This band is a huge source of inspiration to DIY punk around the world. Just because they don't fit into the cookie-cutter description of success that you have does not mean that they were not successful. WikiPedia is about providing information to the world, and taking this page down would be counterproductive to those goals. allergic 15 December 2005 (UTC)

-*Comment-seems like sock puppets to me?-Reid A. 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure about that, since the punk scene has been rejuvenated in the last few years. As for the AfD, I'd suggest waiting two weeks to allow for possible expansion, and if nothing substantive arrives, then delete it. As it is now presented, this is not an article... and I doubt it would qualify as a stub. Two sentences do not an article make. B.Wind 00:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:MUSIC --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martyr Machiavellian

Dramatic movie that was written by User:Chensiyuan, who also authored the page. Not in IMDb. -- Fplay 06:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotion of user's own non-notable movie. Note that Chensiyuan also removed the AfD tag from the article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, i understand where Fplay is coming from. With the subject of the article related to the contributor, it can't avoid looking like some sort of vanity. i trust that this is not Chensiyuan's intention but Fplay's got a point that not being listed in IMDb, the movie is somewhat of a "non-notable". Note: This unsigned comment was made by Plastictv at 14:38, 18 December 2005. --Spondoolicks 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

'non-notable movie' - well, your non-notable existence is even a greater source of humour. if you're so righteous, why do you not delete your own user page and save wikipedia some funds. you pretend to administer neutrality but contribute nothing to knowledge, that is why wikipedia is suffering from an image problem. another typical bigot. 70.26.180.74 05:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say the imdb tag is inaccurate. Apart from that however, I am unsure what constitutes a 'notable' movie to you. How would you know, apart from making that inference due to the fact that I come from a small country? How about you let Singaporeans decide, is that fair? Chensiyuan

Delete No evidence of notability. Apparent vanity article.--Spondoolicks 15:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above two comments by Chensiyuan and Spondoolicks were deleted by 70.50.65.88 at 23:18, 18 December 2005, and replaced with offensive remarks. --Spondoolicks 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and burn, per above comment.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

And per
[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barelas and Barelas 13

A really ugly page about a nn street gang. --
Shazaam! - <*> 06:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral for the moment. Waiting to see if someone can demonstrate verifiability and notability. The present article does neither. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless verified and notability is established. I've been unable to find anything on Google that indicates a presence outside of Albuquerque and the article claims the gang has spread to other cities. -- Kjkolb 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do the people anywhere but Aberquerque give a rat's ass? Thought not. D e nni ☯ 03:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I'm a high school teacher in an area with a high gang presence, and the more I can learn the more it helps me know what to look for. However, there isn't really that much useful info in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.48.5 (talk • contribs) 15 Dec 2005

Delete as no evidence of being anything other than minor local groups.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Well known street gang based on news coverage. -- JJay 12:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autopsy/Images

A blatant shocker article with no encyclopedic value. Agamemnon2 07:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and cremate without autopsy, and make sure to get the (copyvio) images as well. --Zetawoof 08:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm all for not censoring Wikipedia, but I'm sure we could have autopsy images with a little more taste incorporated in the article. Articles are NOT galleries, and these have no qualities apart from shocking the reader. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for copyvio - All the images are just taken from Ogrish.com. Also, I'm not sure what Wikipedia is not, but I'm sure it shouldn't be a photo gallery. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under
WP:NOT and also for copyvio. 23skidoo 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete per the above. Durova 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No squeamishness about image, but far too small for any usable purpose and only a link. 03:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete It's just a link to a small image now because I edited it that way. Get the page and the images off of Wikipedia. There's already an autopsy article, and that's enough. Someone who needs more visual detail should go to a medical library or become a doctor. -Barry- 04:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the full autopsy article, I notice it references those pictures, in that they were not presented in the full article because of their graphic nature. Personally, I don't think one needs them presented in that context, the textual representation of the autopsy process is sufficient for our use. --Agamemnon2 06:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib

Please compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People reported to be born in the Kaaba. It's kind of a zero-sum game since there is no need for both articles. (my reasoning below). gren グレン

This article is created in respons to a revert was in the Ali article. IMHO, the article is pov in both content, form and title.
If the "Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib" article is simply NPOV, then it must be merged into the
Shi'a view of Ali. However, it is neither, it is not representing Shi'a pov, nor is it NPOV. Nor is it the pov of anyone else. The creator of the article, and sole contributor to it is User:Zora
. The article is nothing more than Zora POV.
The whole content is basicly saying this:

Shi'a are a minority

Shi'a love Ali

Shi'a belive Ali was born in the Kaaba

Shi'a quote Sunni sources, not implying that Sunni belive their own source.

(a direct lie, since i have proven in many talk pages and dialogs with Zora that Sunnis belive in that also)

Sunni say he was born in his own house.

(Again, i direct lie, Zora presented a page she belive contained that information, but in fact, the site contradicted her by stating that there is a consensus that Ali was born in the Kaaba. No matter, the site was unprofesional and would not constitute evidence even if it contained what Zora belived it contained. Zora has not presented any source at all that has contradicted or even comments negativly on the credibility of that specific narration.)

Sunni have a alternative candidate, whom they hardly mention.

(This part of the article is given unfairly little attention)

No academic historian supports the Shi'a claim.

(Implying that Shi'a and Sunni scholars are not academics. I have proven that a Sunni scholar regarded it as authentic)
Now, compare it to this article: People reported to be born in the Kaaba.

That article clearly says it is "reports", not mentioning factual credibilty.

It mentions both cases separatly

It gives clear reference to both cases

It gives the pov of Sunni, Shi'a and non-Muslims on both cases

It does not try to discredit the information of one of the cases by first giving a rant about why shi'a whould be biased to beliving in one version.

It contains a NPOV title, "People reported to be born in the Kaaba", instead of the a pov title focused on one of the two.

Lastly i want to repeat myself:
If the "Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib" article is simply NPOV, then it must be merged into the
Shi'a view of Ali. However, it is neither, it is not representing Shi'a pov, nor is it NPOV. Nor is it the pov of anyone else. The creator of the article, and sole contributor to it is User:Zora
. The article is nothing more than Zora POV.

Delete --Striver 03:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (read Zora's comments
here). I am going to put up Striver's article for deletion (i.e. perging other part to Hakim) since I believe that is the article of the two that should be deleted. Either version would need work, of course, but this naming scheme is better in my opinion and it doesn't create an article relating the rather unrelated subjects of the birth of Hakim and Ali. gren グレン 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, or Merge this article with People reported to be born in the Kaaba. Either keep the title of this article, or come up with another title. "Report" is a POV-pushing term when applied to 200-300 year old oral traditions. Zora 08:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having read User:Zora's comments, I suggest holding this vote over for 5 days to allow her to clean-up the page as she offers, then re-list for a fresh discussion. I see no need for two articles on the same subject (if that is what these are): but (if these are 2 subjects, then each should be dealt with on its/their own. --Simon Cursitor 08:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first VFD nomination, if i am not misstaken...--Striver 03:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the editor who created the article -- expanding on a comment on the talk page of the article.

My first entry on the talk page said that the article was a placeholder and not very good. On looking at it again, I agree that it needs a lot of work. I had just forgotten to come back to it. However, I don't think it needs to be deleted. Give me a day or two to work on it and I'm sure I can improve it.

Striver is trying to get this article removed so that his version of this same controversy, People reported to be born in the Kaaba, is the only one left standing. Clearly, the two articles should be merged. They should not be merged under "People reported to be born in the Kaaba", as that is ungrammatical. Nor is it a good representation of the controversy.

The use of the term "report" suggests eyewitness reports. But the "reports" were in fact recorded 200 to 300 years after the supposed event, after having been passed down as oral traditions for hundreds of years. Moreover, they were recorded at a time when the Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam were "settling out" as religious sects rather than political parties. Proto-Shi'a were already making extensive claims for Ali's exalted status, birth in the Kaaba, semi-divinity, etc.

Hadith are a vast corpus of contradictory materials. Even Muslim scholars agree that many of them are not reliable. Non-Muslim scholars treat them as so much fable, or use them with extreme caution. By treating 200-300 year old rumors as "reports", Striver is pushing his Shi'a POV, in which Ali is a perfect human being, without sin or error, and must therefore have been born in a way befitting his exalted condition.

What Striver is NOT saying is that many Sunni do not believe that the hadith reporting Ali's birth in the Kaaba are reliable. We had one Sunni editor who flatly contradicted Striver, saying that he did NOT believe the tradition. But Striver has already forgotten that and is again accusing me of lying.

Striver is also being less than candid in not reporting that the "birth in the Kaaba" tradition is not included in any of the sira literature. It seems to be a late tradition, not an early one. Nor is Striver mentioning the contemporary academics who don't even mention the tradition, having dismissed it as a myth that doesn't even merit refuting. I'm perfectly willing for Striver to have all the room he needs to lay out the Shi'a position and list all the hadith said to support it. I just want him to let other views have equal room -- and for him to let proponents of other views state their own positions.

When I picked the title "Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib", I was trying hard for a non-POV title. I think the title I chose is non-POV, in that it doesn't take any stand on where Ali was born. If other editors can think of a different, better, title, I'd be OK with that too.

If the two articles are merged, the resulting article is going to be the scene of intense controversy and many revert wars, I'm afraid. But I suppose that's OK, since what I was trying to do was take the controversy out of the
Ali ibn Abi Talib article, where it has been simmering ever since Striver started editing there. If the controversy has its own article, there should be room to lay out all the arguments, references, etc. Zora 08:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and Redirect to
Ali ibn Abi Talib unless the article is significantly expanded and NPOVed by the end of this week. Blackcats 17:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Clean and Merge I don't know what this article says, I don't know what it's about. It seems to be sort of a hearsay piece. I don't see the point of this article, put it in the man's bio (including reference to scholarly debate). DeathThoreau 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with putting the issue in the bio is the issue is so contentious that it completely hijacks the bio. Putting it in a breakout article makes room for discussion, for all parties to lay out arguments, etc. I'm not adamant about this, however. Particularly as my tactic of trying to keep the bio neutral and put the controversies into their own articles has been completely undermined by an influx of Shi'a editors determined to turn the article into hagiography. It's rather like the continuing struggles over the Jesus article. Zora 20:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it stands I'd support the deletion of this article, but I'll hold off on voting since Zora intends to work on it. Clearly there is an issue here worth treatment, but I'm still not sure that it can't fit into the Ali article. While I appreciate Zora's comments in that regard, in principle I really don't like the idea of creating separate subarticles for controversial issues that aren't justified by the amount of valuable content in them.Palmiro | Talk 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -
Mailer Diablo 06:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

People reported to be born in the Kaaba

Compare to this VfD. It is a zero sum game and either this article or that article should go. (unless of course you want both). This article combines two subjects that need not be combined. It is much better to discuss the Hakim part in the Hakim article and the Ali part in the sub-article of Ali since his article is too long. If there were hundreds of people claimed to be born in the Kaaba it would be different... but there are not. gren グレン 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge I'm the person who started the competing article. I don't think we need two articles, and I don't like the name of this one. However, I'm willing to give up the name I chose for my version if other editors can think of a better name. Zora 08:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep as a parent article of the fenomena, since the fenomena of reports of people being born there is unusual. Complement with more about the actual event of people being reported to be born there.

Name is NPOV in my opinion, but Zora does not like "reports" since it implies eyewitnesses. I do not agree with her, "reports" is NPOV. A "report" can be false, as Shi'a belive the Hakim "reports" are fabricated. Zora wants to remove the possibility of the "reports" even having the possibility of being true, and that is the POV of Zora and those believing all event related to it to be a fabrication. "Claim" is POV, implying "they claim it, but there is no evidence", "Belived" is even worse. There are documented reports of the claim, some people beliveing the reports to be false does not make the word POV, only needs to be represented in the actual article, as it already does.

If the material of the individuals is moved to other articles, this articles still needs to stand and link to all those other articles, exept for elaborating on the actual scenario of people being born there. --Striver 14:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The point of the article is very muddled, it would seem that certain sects of Islam believe different things. I don't think that it really needs its own article since this could easily be covered by the bios of either Ali or Hakim, or in the article about the Kabaa. Perhaps there could be an article about how various Islamic Sects percieve the Kabaa. DeathThoreau 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment for the first, the topic is to broad to be included in a biographical article, it would get unproportionaly much space, and distract from the main topic. For the second, why split the information all over the place, when it is closly related? --Striver 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Reports of unusual religious childbirths. Palmiro | Talk 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP--Khalid! 12:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Stiver --Ya Ali 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Chelman 10:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comments

I had this as a section in the Kaaba article previously, but it was sugested to be given a separate article [36], since it would take to much space in the Kaaba article. As of now, the section contains way to much information to be put back in the Kaaba article, if all the sources and views are going to be represented.--Striver 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not too averse to that... although it throws off the relative importance of births in the Kaaba as compared to other things if the section is too long. gren グレン 08:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Moojan Momen's history of Shi'a Islam right now (thanks to dgl) and it expands a fair bit on the various Shi'a sects and their conceptions of Ali -- some of them turned him into a semi-divinity. I don't think the discussion of this tradition belongs under Kaaba, it belongs under Ali and Shi'a Islam. It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism. Zora 09:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. The way Sunnism and Shi'ism played off of each other in history is very interesting and something we fail to discuss well at all. The Safavid / Ottoman split where they formed their identities contra the other to an extent. In all honesty with the breadth of information we could cover I'm not sure how we can have it all in an orderly, readable, and well weighted fashion. Having millions of articles and not relating them is not the key. There needs to be some incentive for expertise around here. gren グレン 09:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get this? Why does nobody tells Zora to stop lying when she says stuff like "It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism"? Look at this SUNNI site: [37].

Im used to her bigotry and her incapability of accepting evidence that falsifie her view, but get very provocated when people start buying her nonsens. Again:

Sunni site:

Ali was born under unusual circumstances. On the thirteenth of the holy month of "Rajab", Fatima, the mother of Ali, visited the Kaaba for performing the pilgrimage. During the course of the pilgrimage while circumambulating the Kaaba, Fatima felt the pangs of childbirth. She retired to a secluded place in the precincts of the Holy Kaaba, and there Ali was born. Ali had thus the unique honor of being born in the House of God. This unparalleled honor has endowed Ali with a halo of sanctity, which has become the subject of many legends. A hundred years later, Zain-ul-Abidin a grandson of Ali (son of Husain) met as Arab woman at Najaf who told him that her grandmother had helped on the occasion of the birth of Ali. She narrated that according to the account of her grandmother, the child was beautiful, a smile played on his lips, it did not cry like other children, and its birth did not cause any pain to his mother. [38]

Zora bull****:

"It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism".

Zora, Don't be a dense dick --Striver 09:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please
do not make personal attacks such as calling someone a liar and a bigot on the AFD forum. --Gurubrahma 10:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

It is not a personal attack, it is fact. Zora is a bigot. Loot at the article:
Bigot
:

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman. Today, it is considered a synonym of narrow-minded.

Bigot is often used as pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false, often engaging these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology, like racism, religion, nationalism, and homophobia. Bigotry is not just intolerance, but rather extreme and unreasonable intolerance.

That describes Zora perfectly. She IS a
bigot
.

I redid
Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib to include that site, Witness-Pioneer. It doesn't right out say that it's Sunni -- in fact, it seems to be trying to reconcile Sunni and Shi'a, by accepting traditions from both. I can't find any information on who owns and edits the site. I'm not sure it represents a trend. Have you found any more Sunni websites (outright Sunni sites) that accept the born-in-the-Kaaba tradition? Zora 10:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Zora, stop your accusing it of "it seems to be trying to reconcile Sunni and Shi'a, by accepting traditions from both." Here is how you argue:

Naration is for sure only Shi'a (Because i say so)

Anyone accepting it is Shi'a

hence, that site is Shi'a

Try this:

From the source books that have come down to us, we do not have a proper account of the activities of Ali during the caliphate of Abu Bakr. Unfortunately most of the accounts that are available are colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations. It appears that Ali did not take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr for some time and he remained aloof from the state politics. It appears that after the death of Fatima, Abu Bakr tried to console Ali in his grief, and win over his goodwill. It appears that Ali took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr some time after the death of Fatima and got reconciled to him. When Abu Bakr died, Ali in the funeral oration highly praised Abu Bakr.

would a Shia say "It appears" that Ali did not take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr? Now, they would strongly claim that it was so, not try to smoothen it with some rant about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", Both Shi'a, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are unanimous in that matter, the is no "appears" or "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", that site only gives a disclaiming rant since they dont like the consensus!
Would a Shi'a say "When Abu Bakr died, Ali in the funeral oration highly praised Abu Bakr." ?

The married life of Ali and Fatima did not extend beyond nine years. It was a happy union. Nevertheless there were differences between the pair occasionally. Once, after having quarreled with Fatima, Ali went to the mosque, and lay on bare earth. That made the Holy Prophet call Ali by the appellation of Abu Turab, Father of the earth. At one time, Ali entertained the idea of marrying a daughter of Abu Jahl. Fatima complained to the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet felt annoyed, and while addressing the people in the mosque he said that verily Fatima was part and parcel of him. [39]

PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?

(Ali is claimed to have said Abu Bakr) had been with the Prophet more than any one else, and your love for Islam was superior to others.[40]

PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?

Khum Ghadir: There is a good deal of controversy about the Holy Prophet's address at Khum Ghadir. But the fact is that the sayings of the Holy Prophet are a continuation of his life-long message and struggle in the light of the teachings of the Holy Quran the final Word of Allah. Whatever is compatible with it is only to be accepted. [41]

PURE non-sense, Sahih Muslim says "Quran and AHl al-Bayt", there is no controversy whatsoever! Now, this guys try to claim there is a controversy about the words, and try to spin it to "quran and Sunnah". Now, HERE in Ghadir Khumm you see a disclaimar abouth "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", when there is totaly concensus regarding what was said!
Is this what you call a joint Shi'a Sunni site?

Khalifa Abu Bakr

Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab

Khalifa Ali bin Talib

Khalifa Uthman bin Ghani [42]

PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?

Consequences of the Martyrdom of Uthman [43]

PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?

To Uthman belongs the unique honor of having married two daughters of the Holy Prophet, one after the other. For this rare distinction he was called "Dhun-Nurain" the possessor of two lights. [44]

PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
Zora, is this what you are trying to claim is a joint Shi'a-Sunni site?
The site reiterates sunni pov, and when it must sayin established sunni pov that benefits Shi'a pov, its gives disclaimers!
Zora, where did you get the idea of them being a joint Shi'a-Sunni site from? Did you even bother to look for five second around before labeling it a "joint sunni-Shi'a site"?
Again: Zora logic:

Ali being born in the Kaaba: "It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism". (Because Zora says so)

Anyone accepting the narration is Shi'a, because Zora says so.

That site give that narration, hence, it must be Shi'a, or maybe joint Shi'a Sunni.

Get your head out of your
bigoting ego
and start doing some real reserch!
Its feels like:

Zora: "The earth is flat"

Striver: "But this guys says the world is round"

Zora: "He is Shi'a, it doesnt count"

Striver: "But they are Sunnis, they belive in the four Sunni Caliphs"

Zora: "It does'nt mater, then they are joint Shi'a Sunni. The earth is flat, end of discusion!"

She is totaly incapable of accepting a defeat or even entertain the thought of being misstaken. This is not a new argument, i have tried to make her realise that this Sunni site says he was born in the Kaaba, but she goes on with her fingers in her ears sayng it a "distinct Shi'a belief". She is truly unique... --Striver 11:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I think you've seen me apologizing for mistakes numerous times. As to Witness-Pioneer -- I said that I'm not sure of what to make of it. I paged rapidly through the narrative looking for the usual points of controversy, and it seemed to me that the author of the work was trying to make nice-nice to both sides. Frex, here's a quote about Ghadir Khum:

When all people, over one hundred thousand in number had assembled at the pond in the Khum valley, the Holy Prophet addressed them. The exact text of the address is not available. There is a good deal of controversy about the contents of the address, and both the Sunnis and the Shias have their own versions of the address. [45]

And after that, the author doesn't take sides! If this is a Sunni site, it seems to me that it's not a typical Sunni site. Now that wouldn't at all be important if there were a dozen other Sunni sites, or books, anything, giving the Ali-born-in-the-Kaaba story. But I haven't been able to find them. That's not to say that they don't exist. I'm perfectly willing to believe that some Sunni accept this story. It seems utterly implausible to me (I'm religious, but I don't believe in miracles) but millions of Sunni Muslims believe other things that I'd regard as implausible. But it is really not clear just how widespread this belief is among the Sunni. I have a few books written by Sunnis (Zakaria and Lings) and they don't mention the story at all. More references would help. Zora 12:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, you know that it is standard issue for the sunnis to not talk about that. They dont want to "take side", since there is only one side, only one version of the text of the event, the one saying that Muhammad left the Qura'an and Ahl al-Bayt and saying Ali is the Mawla of everyone. That is authentic by all Sunni scholars. Yet, Sunni biographies dont want to touch it. That is not NPOV, that is POV to the point that they dont even want to admit their own POV.
And further, you remeber this? [46]
A Sunni answering "somone" that asked if Sunnis belive Ali was born ther with:

Indeed Ali was born in Kaaba, but he was not the only one born in Kaaba. From time of Ismael & Abraham the people born in Kaaba amount to 100 thousand. It was the custom for pregnant women of high statue to spend the last days near Kaaba hoping they deliver there. There were two people contemporary with Mohammad and Ali who was born in Kaaba. He was an Infidel and ran from Mekka when Prophet entered the City. He was wanted by the Prophet. He was later pardoned and converted to Islam. Also, many many Arabs had the Name Ali at the time of Mohammad and before him. So, I don't know what is the big deal about these two matters.

Shi'a belive only Ali was born there, that sunni guy belived half the world, inclusive Ali, was born there. You know this, you have read this, yet you are doing something that can be nothing else than lying by writing thins like

"It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism".

Zora, stop lying. --Striver 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say "A pox on both your houses." There is no room in Wikipedia for personal attacks on either side. It's clear we have divergent POVs here; so I'd suggest relying more on verifiable references that don't prefer one side or the other. If the protagonists in this soap opera can't take a step back, then the most prudent move to make is to Userfy until they can resolve their differences and work jointly on ONE article. If userfication is not an option, it might be best to delete both as vandalism magnets if the persons involved cannot show self-restraint. B.Wind 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Papoose (rapper)

Non-notable article, probable vanity. Google search turns up some related links but nothing displaying any modicum of notablity. Doesn't meet
WP:BIO standards. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Meets
t c 14:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I already voted keep on this one. LOL. This is a bit confusing. Can we just speedy keep both of them and then deal with the articles to avoid confusion? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS Here is what I wrote there (although this article has less in it than the Papoose one did). - he has an allmusic.com entry. His "notable song", "Alphabetical Slaughter" has hundreds of google hits: [47]. He's been talked about a fair bit too, including on message boards [48], hip hop communities [49], and has almost 50 singles released [50]. He has also won Justo's Award for Mixtape Artist of the Year in 2004, hence meeting another requirement of
WP:MUSIC, as featured on MTV [51]. He meets the notability requirements quite comfortably. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I re-added a lot of the stuff that was previously at Papoose (before that article was made to be about Papoose the thing rather than Papoose the rapper), because the original Papoose article had a lot more info than the rapper article. I have also added the references, including his 50-part discography and him receiving the MTV award. Considering the other names at that MTV award, and considering its MTV, I think it is safe to say that that counts as a major award. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to satisfy notability requirements. -Colin Kimbrell 17:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep after rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Papoose

~~Non-notable article, probable vanity. Google search turns up some related links but nothing displaying any modicum of notablity. Doesn't meet~~
~~WP:BIO standards. Has been deleted thrice now and been through afd once already May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Nomination withdrawn after rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A listing on allmusic.com still doesn't qualify for listing on the basis of
WP:Bio requirements if you are unfamiliar with them please read -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 08:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Also this page has been repeatedly deleted and has been through AFD'd once before per nominator -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 08:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to comment here that this was a good faith attempt at an article. The user who created this page was not doing so for vanity, and genuinely believed that Papoose was suitably notable for his own article. It was written by a newbie, and hence is written in a newbie way. The author didn't cite the references very well, and it is poorly written. But please remember Wikipedia's policy of "Don't bite the newbies" and also to
WP:AGF assume good faith. I have seen the comments made by Susan Larson about this, including refusing to allow the author to make their voice heard, which is really a bit unfair. An author is permitted to have a vote. The sock puppet issue comes in if they try to make 2 votes. Whilst I don't know what happened in the original article nomination, I just think that we should be working more towards helping newbies rather than automatically suspecting them of evil deeds. We were all newbies once upon a time. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The claims of the edits being a good faith do not hold true in the face of the facts that the creator removed various {{db}} and {{merge}} tags several times from the article without any reason: [52] [53] [54] [55] even after being told not to do so on his talk page. Therefore, I cannot believe that the edits were in good faith.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: First nomination here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Papoose. It was speedy deleted as an attack page. Hence this second version of the article, which is clearly not an attack page, does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, as it is not the same article. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has nominated this article for speedy deletion now so your so your concerns are unrequired.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, See above. See also Talk:Papoose -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 08:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete it ! why would you do that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravediggah (talk • contribs) Gravediggah is the author of this article

Keep - he has an allmusic.com entry. His "notable song", "Alphabetical Slaughter" has hundreds of google hits: [56]. He's been talked about a fair bit too, including on message boards [57], hip hop communities [58], and has almost 50 singles released [59]. He has also won Justo's Award for Mixtape Artist of the Year in 2004, hence meeting another requirement of
WP:MUSIC, as featured on MTV [60]. He meets the notability requirements quite comfortably. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as NN, and re-created deleted content (?) The JPS 10:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. The original version was an attack page, this is not. So it is not re-created deleted content, and speedy delete does not apply. 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I've excised all the stuff about the rapper, and replaced it with the actual definition of a 'papoose'. Put a dab on
t c 14:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. That seems like a good idea. However, from memory there was more in the Papoose article than in the Papoose (rapper) article. Would you mind merging some bits in to the rapper one? Or maybe working on on more stuff? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't see much that wasn't just opinion stuff, which shouldn't have been there in the first place. However, the history has everything in it if you want to recheck this.
t c 16:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep the new, rewritten article, which should be expanded with an extended discussion of the folklore (?) that has Native American women bundling their infants and carrying them on their backs. It is no longer the same article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - OK it exists, Proto, and well done for retrieving it, but it's still a dicdef.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Strange, I see etymology, and two differing objects the term refers to (a small Native American child, and the a form of bag or holdall). There is most definitely sufficient there for a stub on a notable topic, with a very good chance of expansion. You should not vote to delete an article because it's a dictionary definition at the moment. Instead, perhaps you could consider tagging it for expansion. It should only be suggested for deletion if there is no possibility of expanding it beyond the dictionary definition. Here you could have the history of the papoose bag, manufacture techniques, manufacturers, market conditions, periods it was popular in fashion, why the bag is called a 'papoose', and so on, and so forth.
t c 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, you persuaded me. Keep it is. -
[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep as rewritten. Any discussion about the rapper should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papoose (rapper). — JIP | Talk 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already had discussion, and were pretty close to a consensus for keeping it. Can we move the comments over to that AFD or is that not allowed? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well done, Proto. I have expanded the article further as has someone else. It is more than just a dictdef now. Capitalistroadster 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson as CSD G4

The Dark Channel

"A poorly written article that provides no references.DeleteTheRingess 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- More importantly, site is nonnotable, article is vanity and self-promotion/spam. DreamGuy 08:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Paranormal Investigation Association

This article was created by a new account named after the site, who has put multiple links (one main domain name and one that forwards to the first) to the article on multiple articles... It is clearly nonnotable, vanity, self-promotion spam. Besides linkfarming and now creating the pointless article, the editor also created several redirects, including CPIA, Center for paranormal and Center for paranormal investigation association. All should be deleted as an abuse of this project. DreamGuy 08:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, google gets 278 hits (incl wikipedia). Non-notable. --Squiddy 09:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable - advert by user of same name. - Tεx τ urε 16:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn-bio and nonsense.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Wardle

Nonsense Mreini 08:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion Communications

Some kind of company of some sort. NN. Delete. --
Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless cleaned up into a decent stub.
Harro5 08:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no signs of meeting
WP:CORP --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NetCMD

Unnotable and inoperative service. Haakon 08:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks context to define notability. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Johnstone

nonsense, unnotable Mcfly85 08:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (isn't this speedyable? nn-bio). --Squiddy 09:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't speedy CSD A7 because it claims that he's famous for some stuff. Of course these claims are Complete bollocks, but I think we still have to AfD... Jamie 10:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.
e ] 17:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Victory Day (Malta)

The contents of this article where transferred to Victory Day. The contents in the latter page are merely a copy of Victory Day(Malta). Maltesedog 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Expand. Victory Day is meant as a little more than a list. Description for the 'Victory Day' in different places are meant to be brief. We can use {{Main|Victory Day (Malta)}} there. Victory Day (Malta) would be a good page for details about Victory Day in Malta as well as pictures of people in Malta celebrating. Someone just have to put in the work. -- PFHLai 09:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The celebrations on Victory Day in Malta are limited to solemn formal celberations. There is not much to expand. Maltesedog 12:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - per PFHLai. Blackcats 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move to
e ] 17:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Fourth Mechanized Corps

Too generic article name. Difficult to merge into Battle of Stalingrad and similair. Orphan article Scoo 09:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The text below originate from my botched attempt to nominate yesterday (12 Dec 2005)
~~Delete~~, article has a too a generic name (4th Mechanized corps), the content is non-existent as of now, dubious whether enough info could be gathered for an article of its own. Battle of Stalingrad would probably not need a list of individual participating units. Scoo 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; likely to cause confusion. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article title is confusing, than a move to a new title is appropriate. The title shouldn't be grounds for deletion. The article as it stands is pretty poor, but we have a number of decent articles on different military units (based on the unit's history and not one battle). It is possible this could be expanded to that level, but I don't know enough to know to one way or the other. unsigned by JLaTondre 00:48, 16 December 2005

Oops! Thanks to Scoo for fixing... -- JLaTondre 13:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Anyway I agree that the best thing to do would be to keep, move and expand, ~~but at the moment deletion would be most suitable IMHO as the article should be moved and written in a standardized way.~~ I've contacted someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soviet_Union for advice but it might take some time to get organized (to format guidelines etc). Finally, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history don't seem to have any guidelines on how to treat units, only battles. Scoo 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. wrong title, wrong body. -R. S. Shaw 05:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to
Soviet 4th Mechanized Corps—I don't see any reason to delete this—Soviet units are very neglected in Wikipedia. It's likely to remain a stub for a long time, but that's okay. —Michael Z.
2005-12-16 16:55 Z

Move and expand as per Michael. Scoo 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Have a look at these articles to see where this one would belong (the list is sketchy so far). This one should probably be renamed
Soviet 4th Corps). —Michael Z.
2005-12-16 16:55 Z

List of military corps
III Corps

IV Corps (still unwritten)

List of military corps by number

Soviet order of battle for invasion of Poland in 1939

Corps#Soviet Corps

I've looked over my one measly source and done some Web searching. It looks like a few sources use the conventional roman numeral notation, but most would write
Soviet 4th Mechanized Corps. —Michael Z.
2005-12-16 17:18 Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, material is in Wikibooks.
Rx StrangeLove 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Atmospheric pressure demo

This article fails a number guidelines and policies. It is written in the wrong tone and it describes how to do an experiment (Wikipedia is
NOT an HOWTO guide. It also doesn't explain the experiment (which would make it more encyclopedic). I've added a more general link with a number of other movies (as well as the one linked to) to Atmospheric pressure so this has no more value. Delete (perhaps transwiki to Wikibooks, but I have a feeling it's already there). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: I found a wikibooks module about the experiment. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Casio EV-4500

Unless anyone knows about a category or list of similar articles this can join, there seems to be nothing remarkable about this portable TV. Delete, as Wikipedia is not a catalogue. If there are similar articles about TV models, then that's a different matter... The JPS 10:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice TV - I got one after being hit by hurricane Katrina and used it after being hit by hurricane Wilma - but it merits an article about as much as a Texas Instruments SR-50A calculator. Delete B.Wind 00:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Punani. Owen× ☎ 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pum Pum

One view of women in Trinidad and Tobago. Hoax / original research. Zero Google hits on, for example ' "pum pum" aleong'. -- RHaworth 10:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, some sort of personal research. — JIP | Talk 10:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weird original research/essay. Dealing with women gives men fever and rashes, which are then cured by holy water?? Confusing almost to the point of being nonsense, and certainly not an encyclopedic treatment of any topic. Delete per
WP:NOR. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to pussy - It's a schoolboy (?) essay about human sexuality. Just in case it wasn't obvious, "pum pum" = "pussy" (to translate a Jamaican colloquialism into an American one). Guettarda 15:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note - if this is deleted, would the deleting admin also please delete Pum pum, which is where the article was originally placed. Guettarda 15:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am confused why you used that specific google term. I would have thought that Pum Pum and Trinidad was more logical. And yes, it is confirmed to be true. The essay looks too detailed to be a hoax anyway. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's a real word. But this is appears to be a personal essay. It lacks any encyclopaedic content. And the title is nothing more than a slang term for vagina. Guettarda 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone can provide a cite. The google search above doesn't seem to lead anywhere relevant, unless I overlooked it. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; notable, mildly interesting. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 04:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is your cite [61]. I will quote the relevant part, "PUM-PUM a woman's genitals (6) ". It is the Trinidadian equivalent of
Rastafarian word, not just Trinidadian. Oh, and here is a cite giving its meaning as "vagina" or "woman" [64]. And, whilst this is slang, it is clearly in widespread use in Rastafarian areas with 14,400 google hits. As for whether the current content of this article is correct, that's another matter entirely. But the title "Pum Pum" does seem to mean what the article suggests. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, sorry, I should correct that. It seems that the word Punani, as popularised by Ali G, was derived from the rastafarian word Pum Pum (here). Ali G liked to pretend to be reggae after all. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting on punani - I know it as a Trini word long before pum pum (a J'can word) came into common usage. Given usage I assumes that punani had hindi origins. As for "pum pum shorts" - the meaning is the same - it's shorts that are so small and tight that they show off just about everything. The alternate usage is a dicdef though, not really an article. Guettarda 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should add that to the punani article then. Right now it just says that punani was invented by Ali . Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, it's just a word I grew up with, not something I have any definite knowledge of. But I should find out, if I can. Guettarda 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to punani and it could possibly have a small paragraph in that article. Capitalistroadster 18:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that they mean the same thing. Historically, maybe, but currently no. Punani only means vagina. Pum pum can also mean women. They also have deeper meanings that differ. I am beginning to think that I should have left the essay in there. It looks like that explained everything nicely. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got a link to something that traces the history of the word pum pum here [65]. I am not sure how reliable the information is, but it seems that they are suggesting that Punany came first, and Pum Pum is a "dirtier" version of Punany, since Punany eventually came to be more polite. But apparently now even Pum Pum is not derogatory anymore. By the way, the Punani article is really inaccurate if it credits it to Ali G, given this evidence. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually a bit confusing, since it seems to be both derogatory and a compliment at the same time. I guess its similar to
rastafarian culture. Oh, and apparently since Punany/Punani is now Americanised, Pum Pum is now the preferred term in Rastafarian culture, since they now view the definition of Punany as being Americanised. It'd be an interesting thing to look in to. Pity if we have to wipe something that's enormously popular and in widespread use with cultural significance before we've had a chance to write it properly. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Not too sure about your use of "rastafarian" - it's a "mainstream" word (crude, not polite, but not limited to a single subculture), in Jamaica, Trinidad, and almost certainly the rest of the English-speaking Caribbean. As for Americanisation of punani, etc., what's your source for that assertion? Guettarda 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I listed the sources there in the article. Go fix the article then. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by
e ] 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Daniel Adeyemi

Non notable person, probably vanity. Chrislee 11:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as {{
nn-bio}}/CSD A7 Jamie 11:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Overhead and free kick specialist

This article appears to have been created by a new user entirely to bolster a vanity/hoax article
soccer, there is no reason to link them in a single article as a joint specialism - except apparently to justify the disputed (and previously redlinked) claim that this Fullerton is one. Tearlach 11:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- frivolous article created solely for the purposes of AfD campaigning. Demiurge 11:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete needless duplication, quite possibly a fork specifically created to make a
[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Overhead and free kick into trash bucket --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, you beat me to it! :-P — orion eight (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — orion eight (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely useless. A free kick specialist would be self-defined, overhead kick specialists don't exist and combining the two is a really weak attempt to make a
WP:POINT. - Bobet 19:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. It's also not good when there's a subheading that appears in the article as a broken link (and everything below it should be deleted on its own as POV if there's not authority asserting "the best"). In fact, I think I'll
be bold and do some pruning myself. B.Wind 20:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I've never heard of someone whose sole specialties are these by themselves. Wouldn't be much of a footballer if they were, though.
e ] 01:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete rubbish. Stu 08:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kwinnit

Neologism. Delete Jamie 11:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,as per nominator. Google search returns one irrelevant result. «LordViD» 13:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although frankly this does sound good for a name of a game cheating program that runs under KDE. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- JJay 12:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paper pop

A Google search found just one use of "paper pop", and it wasn't used as described in the article. Paper pop either doesn't exist, or it's used by an insignificant minority. SaltyWater 11:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never heard the phrase before in my life, can't find it through Google, and it really just seems to be lumping bands together who shouldn't really be lumped together as a genre of music - although I must admit anyone who can put The Flaming Lips right next to Belle & Sebastian amuses the hell out of me. --MullHistSoc 02:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified, both as a neologism and a musical genre category. No sign of it in Newsbank (world newspaper archive) either. Tearlach 20:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.
e ] 17:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Blood electrification

This is along the same lines as Hulda Clark's "Zapper." This article will probably turn into a "FDA and AMA are the devil" kind of article...if anyone works on it. CDN99 12:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete it seems that this exists, and is discussed a bit on the snake-oil circuit, but there is no denying it lacks a credible evidential basis. This much is stated in the article. Overall, though, it seems to be remarkably low on Google hits given the enormous coverage of some other quack remedies.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Even an artilce about quack medicine can be encyclopedic. We shouldn't delete an article simply because it could become controversial. -Rholton 13:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the nomination, there is no evidence it's notable or significant. Controversy has nothing to do with it. -
[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no proof that this is popular quackery. This is a directory of qwuacks as much as it is a directory of sch**ls. Pilatus 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - well, I am biased on this one, 'cause I re-wrote it. But I think now it's quite a good stub. It's not confirmed and most likely some hoaxy treatment method, but it cerntainly generates various discussions on the internet. It's hard to do a google search 'cause it does not have a stable name yet. So I say keep, as long as it's close t NPOV and not one-sided glorification (as it was originally). Renata3 18:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a thing against quackery, and I think that an encyclopedia should educate and inform not just on things that are true, but on the sorts of scams and hoaxes being put on the public. While this seems not to be as popular as others, it is still important, you know, for the kids (and by kids I mean people who might go to look up this treatment). DeathThoreau 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but we can't write anything other than "it hasn't been demonstrated to be effective in a controlled study." People may interpret this as "suppression."--CDN99 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this also an "quack"/unproven therapy during Victorian times, and if so does this not render the entire subject encyclo-worthy ? --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are thinking about the lovely
violet wand. This here is just random quacktrash that no one has even heard of, were it not for Wikipedia. Pilatus 13:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - I've been looking for more information about it, and I've found simply amazing testimonials about how people with self-diagnosed cancer/AIDS/numb toes (all at the same time) have run a current across their skin/blood to cure themselves within hours. I'm betting there will be no research done (other than Beck's) because it's utter bologna sausage, or ham for you non-Newfies. --CDN99 03:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No obvious problems. -- JJay 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

BSNL (South India) GPRS

Page is a set of instructions for using a particular service with a particular phone. Wikipedia is not an instructcion manual. Rholton 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, definite delete, as per nominator. «LordViD» 14:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

If it's not a copyvio, could it be transwikied to wikibooks? That's where how to guides should live. But otherwise, delete.
t c 16:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree with
Proto. --Bhadani 16:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Active Slaughter

Yet Another Band Vanity Article, brought to you by the same editor who gave us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suspended. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article ~~and block the author (if he isn't already).~~ --
pour) 14:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and actively slaughter this band vanity.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete bandcruft, but certainly don't block the author. Maybe his pages don't meet the criteria for notability but he shouldn't be blocked for trying his best to add new articles. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC
You're right, I shouldn't have flown off the handle like that..sorry for violating
pour) 15:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK
) 17:32, Dec. 13, 2005

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Futuresuccess

Doesn't meet
WP:CORP. Wrong wiki, folks, the business directory is across the quad at Yellowikis. Pilatus 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There are some companies with this name that might meet
[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete adcrap. Very little left once you cut the promotional language—it apparently hasn't accomplished anything yet. Postdlf 18:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PJM 18:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Wikispam. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 19:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Piper (temperature)

I am pretty sure this is
[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. linas 15:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also searched web and turned up nothing, although it is pretty obvious from the strange language that this is a hoax. ---CH 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Karol 20:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Krich 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Srleffler 22:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bobblewik 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better than average BJAODN. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Great BJAODN material. ACG 04:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect the article as necessary. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intracoastal Democratic Club

Local chapter of the
WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. --207.136.10.50 15:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Article should remain I take issue to this article being deleted as "propaganda". While the article currently may have a bias, it is listed as a stub and is a new article. It is hardly the only biased article on Wikipedia, and bias means the article needs improvement; not deletion. I agree that google doesn't return many results, but google is not the only source for peer reviewed information! I have edited and added to this article, and while I did reference several sites I found via google, I also live in Volusia County (the county in which the group operates) and talked with several people about the group in order to check the accuracy of the information - this included both members of the group and those not associated with it). To my knowledge the information is accurate. I would be happy to continue editing and revising this article, and hope that any bias issues can be addressed on the talk/discussion page rather than just deleting an article because of a political bias for or against the group. Datapharmer 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Florida Democratic Party. Durova 19:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/redirect? I am not against the idea of combining the article with an entry on local level Democratic Parties in the State and I would certainly not block a consensus on merging it if others feel it would be appropriate, but I feel it would be innapropriate if merged directly into the Florida Democratic Party article because the article is about the state group not the local ones. There are distinct articles for the state and national level, is there a reason there should not be one at the local level as well? Perhaps a single article that would cover all local democratic groups within the state would solve this issue? Datapharmer 03:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would be fine with me. Durova 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article relisted on 13 December 2005. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--SockpuppetSamuelson 11:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. The general policy seems to be to not keep local groups unless they are notable in their own right. Vegaswikian 06:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Tom Gilb. Owen× ☎ 16:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy bits first

If it's not a hoax, it's certainly non-notable.
You can call me Al 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Tom Gilb. GeeCee 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-noteable. Of the 280 hits on Google, almost none of them had anything to do with programming. HackJandy 21:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tom Gilb. Wikipedia is not a repository of management / product development catchphrases. Jkelly 00:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge but do not redirect. Stifle 13:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 13 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to
[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with
Agile Programming. Jasmol 21:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burbler pipe

Article is all fine and well but I can't find any verification that 'Burbler pipe' actually exists. Only hits on Google point to WP and mirrors, searches for Burbler, Vermont, etc. on other sites and newsgroups are similarly empty. Unless someone can provide a source, I think this is
unverifiable. --W.marsh 20:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per nom. Bergsten 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 13 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just conceivably a local common name, but if no formal latin name is added by the end of this AfD then it will have earned its place in the bitbucket.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to not delete the article. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect this article at their leisure. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hymers College ACF Detachment

Delete. Not Notable. Paul Cyr 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge into the school article if there's anywhere it'll go. This single army cadet unit is not a significant enough organisation to require its own article; there is no potential to expand this substub. — Haeleth Talk 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a unique situation. It is a one off.
Note: relisting 13 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to college article. Is it really unique? There is no evidence of uniqueness in the article, it sounds just like
[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Hymers College. Unless they are in themselves notable and verifiable school activities should be merged with the school. Capitalistroadster 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xanimo

Delete. Nonsensical and no shown notability Paul Cyr 22:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not cleanup. Fails
talk • contribs
) 10:02, 6 December 2005
Delete, agree with lack of
WP:MUSIC Tom Foolery 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

delete as per nomination. Article does not establish notability. Gaius Cornelius 17:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (3d, 1 weak keep). Mindmatrix 15:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Max Foran

Obscure, orphan and possibly vanity Mecanismo 22:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, submitter --Mecanismo 22:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There really wasn't any need for you to vote there. Everyone can see you nominated. Speaking of which, a little more evidence on why you think this bloke is non-notable wouldn't go astray. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but expand. I actually have interviewed this person for newspapers. The article doesn't address the fact he is a well-published author of academic works. This is a very weak keep, but I contend he's notable enough in academia to justify being kept. 23skidoo 17:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Set a time limit to expand - if the assertion of notability is that he the principal of a Canadian school, I doubt that would be sufficient, but if his noteworthiness comes from his publications, then there's a worthwhile possibility of sufficient notability. B.Wind 21:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- Nothing notable, except that he was nominated for some award (but did not win). He was named as "one of" the University's best professors one year, but how many people made that list? 209.202.119.248 15:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something notable is documented about him. --GrantNeufeld 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep - no consensus.
Fox 17:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Masterdisk

Doesn't appear to meet any notability requirements in
Colonel Tom 22:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. For what it's worth, I edited it into what I thought was a pretty decent NPOV stub, before the vanity press was added back in, but I agree that it doesn't seem to satisfy
WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 16:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete per Tim Pierce. Stifle 12:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep; this rings a bell as something I've seen in the notes of quite a few CDs, mainly (IIRC) with reference to remastering. Fourohfour 16:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does seem notable to me, and after the edits, it's really not that bad. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Advanced Technology Attachment, which discusses master and slave disks and drives. Blackcats 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

But this doesn't have anything to do with master/slave, this is a company name. And even assuming the company is non-notable, I can't imagine someone searching for "master hard drive" who thinks it's one word: masterdisk. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep - no consensus.
Fox 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Avidgamers

Does not seem to meet any of the suggested guidelines in
WP:WEB. Alexa says 30k, the number of forum members is unknown and the article still reads like an advertisement for the site even after numerous edits. HackJandy 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Jkelly 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider a 30k Alexa rank too shabby, but I can't find much Googles either. Can someone do a better Google check? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True number of forum members measure in the several tens of thousands, exact number unknown. Article does not read like an advertisement and is all factual information. Not meeting suggested guidelines does not give sufficient reason for deletion. Even so, article seems to be fine, simply lacking some information that would be nice to have Kilalot 20:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article was written by members with no reason to advertise onlu to inform and it reads as such. 30k Alexa rank isn't that bad and the site does have tens of thousands of members. -
Joey Roe 08:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It just doesn't look like it is going to be used to provide useful information. -- Jbamb 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alpina Sports

Spam article Mecanismo | Talk 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is a leading manufacturer of ski boots. -- JJay 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up. Reads like a sales brochure.Gateman1997 19:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it is cleaned, too POV, reads like an ad. Jussenadv 02:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America 2076

Google test returns 164 results on this book. Possible spam/vanity page. Mecanismo | Talk 21:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable book. D-Rock 22:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as NN. It's not even listed on Amazon. 23skidoo 16:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avalanche of destruction

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete band vanity, nn, don't meet
Bachrach44 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:MUSIC --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Article also strays into music theory in attempt for content. Jussenadv 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Concerns about this article being
original research are not satisfactorialy adressed because the sources provided in the article are not reliable enough (either unpublished or only published on a single, personal, website). Also, votes from entirely new users are discarded leaving only one or two valid "keep" votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ecological cognition

I propose to delete this article. A google search for "ecological cognition" does not bring up any references to this guy bishop (other than his own webpage). Ecological psychology is an important branch of psychology, and there are centers devoted to it (e.g. CESPA at the university of connecticut). Ecological psychology has much to say on the subject of cognition. What is this fellow saying that has not been said by the 50 year old community of ecological psychologists, that is so important that we need a whole new "branch of cognitive psychology"?
I suspect that this article has been written by Bishop himself. What he says does seem to be related to ecological psychology, but rather superficially. You cannot just coin some phrase and then put an article up on wikipedia suggesting that you have invented a disicpline!! To make that claim, you need to have a large body of publications, and several researchers other than yourself using your ideas. This guy graduated a couple of years ago (not in psychology, neuroscience or cognitive science I might add) and has knocked together a couple of papers on E-learning. From this we are expected to regard his body of work as a discipline comparable to ecological psychology. This is the kind of stuff that puts wikipedia into disrepute.
Duracell 19:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The work of Kyttä and Bishop on ecological cognition are both highly credible. Kyttä's work was accepted for a PhD and Bishop's was accepted on a conference on Post Cognitivist Psychology. Bishop is known to be writing on ecological cognition for journals with high impact factors and a book to be published by Oxford University Press. WelshAspie 13:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete. Non notable - very few non-Wikipedia Google hits. [67] Blackcats 17:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Since when has Google been the source for what's coming out of academia? Besides, the ecological cognition page existed long before Duracell joined Wikipedia, so what gives him the right to ask for content to be deleted? Wikipedia should restrict VfD to users that have been in the community a long time to prevent abuse of it like we are seeing from Duracell --Cardydwen 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was
Cryptic (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment for Cardydwen. Get off your soapbox and stop being so testy about this AFD. ALL EDITORS have the right to NOMINATE an article for deletion on whatever grounds they believe are appropriate. The 'community' then decides if those grounds are sufficient by casting their votes and and Admin acts on the result. Entendiste? Eddie.willers 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have been using wikipedia since its inception, but I do not keep the same user name. What on earth has the length of time an article has been on wikipedia got to do with whether it is any good?? And in any case, what qualifies to propose the aricle be deleted is that I am educated on the subject matter of ecological cognition. I am exactly the sort of person you want to be looking at this article. What about you Cardywen? Do *you* know anything about it?Duracell 03:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Duracell. -- Kjkolb 05:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention...Delete as unverified postmodern jibberjabber. The article quotes 2 unpublished sources and one that focuses on a narrow application of the field. Eddie.willers 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Kvcad [68]. If you have criticisms of Kyttä and Bishop's outstanding and groundbreaking research why not make them on the page? It seems to me we have two young researchers making progress in post cognitivist psychology and all their not so academic peers can do is try to destroy the progress they have made. I have an interest in all forms of psychology, as you can see from my edits, I think ecological cognition and situated cognition are very interesting theories and we should not deprive people like Kvcad of finding out about them. Psychologesetz 12:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes a novel branch of study and cites no sources. Three papers are given as further reading: two are unpublished works, and one is published only on the author's own web site. The article thus constitutes
Cryptic (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is OR and should be despatched with prejudice. Eusebeus 15:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to think that we have better ways of knowing the value of information than simply seeing what the Google knows about it, but if we are forced to use the popular media to aprove academic work lets look at the China International Magazine which recently covered the issue of dealing with the problem of internet addiction using a methodology based in the post cognitivist psychology of Ecological cognition. Mark W Beech 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was
Cryptic (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

What does the number of times I have edited wikipedia have to do with the issue of the ecological cognition page? Mark W Beech 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless rewritten as a more general article not focused on these two researchers. Google Scholar finds less than 25 relevant hits, and it does appear that the term is at least occasionally used in the field, but it certainly does not appear to have originated with these two; this looks like someone's putting a spin on very recent research. Bikeable 05:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a principle in law of proportionality, which says a court must decide whether a measure is proportional to the aim. I beleive deleting this page would not be proportional, the proportional thing to do would be to edit the page so it sounds more like the situated cognition page, which says it is contemporary instead of sounding like it has existed a long time. By all means this article should be edited, but not deleted. RichardKent 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was
Cryptic (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes-Bocij Law

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete for the infamous 0 google hits. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and note that neither of the references [69] and [70] mention anything about the law. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could we suspend judgment until the Bocij-Holmes Law becomes part of the archive? Google is not a conduit to scholarly sources, mainly just to junk from Usenet (e.g. see Godwin's Law). But Bocij-Holmes is in fact a relatively new law and has been published in scholarly journals to which Google Scholar does not own rights. It is being given some press and we should see Google availability within 10 days.

Delete as per nom. If and when this is published by some recognizable source, the article can always be recreated on undeleted. ManoaChild 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Iji

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
this band is awesome I just bought their cd at zia and its amazing.
Don't delete their page, I think it is important to know about them becuase they will be hitting main stream soon
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.57.9 (talk • contribs)

Delete - 1 album isn't enough for
WP:MUSIC, and googling gives me next to nothing. I'm not convinced. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I'm sure they'll hit mainstream soon; when they do then they'll fit
T C 17:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per Snurks. DeathThoreau 23:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -
Mailer Diablo 06:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

KOMPRESSOR

Delete,Vanity Page. Does not meet criteria for notability (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MUSIC).

--Z0mb1 21:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've heard of Andreas Kompressor. Kompressor for president! - Home Row Keysplurge 03:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, KOMPRESSOR krush Z0mb1! Seriously, he has a high ranking on last.fm [71]. Smautf 09:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Net and search presence is not listed in the standards set forth in the criteria for notability (again, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MUSIC). Rules are rules. --Z0mb1 09:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - although I must say that it surprises me that they have 3 album pages that were not also nominated.
DISCIPLINE. Whilst the band seems notable enough, and has 3 albums an all of that, I am not remotely convinced that the 3 albums are. I think that the 3 albums should not have their own pages. Not known at allmusic.com, but seems to have enough MP3 success and they have enough google with 344,000 hits, including a lot of discussion of the band. Delete the album pages though (oh, and DO NOT merge the album AFDs in to this one - just because the albums aren't notable doesn't make the band not notable). Actually probably do this AFD first, then deal with the albums, so that we get a better result. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
You don't need AFD to merge and redirect the album articles - David Gerard 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should wait until this AFD is over though, right? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor industrial musician in the big world (I'm not surprised there's not an allmusic page) but deserves an article in the genre - David Gerard 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KOMPRESSOR KRUSH DELETION. Er, I mean keep. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kompressor's popularity in industrial music is growing with lightspeed (and its crushing power). --nbilenko

Keep. Is there a reason to expunge this piece of information from wikipedia? I think this artist meets the criteria for 'notable', only in a way not foreseen by
WP:MUSIC. --Dnofos 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Good point. Perhaps should be used as an example to justify changes to the WP:MUSIC rules. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly notable electronic artist, even if sales aren't quite there. Yet another lacking part of
WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff 00:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I hate people who want to delete articles for the F-en Badness of it. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't care. Z0mb1, you are firstly ignorant and secondly arrogant and self righteous. Someone has put the time and effort to write an article and you just want to torpedo it.

Keep - not my style of music but looks notable enough novacatz 10:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean Up - Oh come on, you haven't heard of Kompressor? Obviously, that article looks like total crap right now, but it can be shaped up by a diligent person more aware of his history. - Liontamer 19:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: KOMPRESSOR IS NOTABLE FOR CRUSHING OF AMERICA -- Bobdoe (Talk) 20:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up though it looks like it will be kept anyway. I second
Я 17:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I really can't see why this is being considered for deletion, other than maybe someone submiting it as such just to cause trouble or something. Kittynboi 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think someone could make this article over again so it doesn't look like a big inside joke and turn it into an article for a real artist. Bravado 03:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete karmafist 23:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M.F.H.

How much of a punk scene can there be in Santa Clarita, that whitebread rich suburb up there in the Valley? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
that, my friend, is an opinion. this wikipedia has been exponentially fixed and added to on it's first day alone, and quickly has become a valid wikipedia for those looking on information about the band. and it's not only viewed by local people, seeing as how we have contacts with recording establishments and places looking for more information than what can be found off the less than serious website.User:Freeninja

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails google. I could not find a single article in the google search that talked about it. They also haven't released anything at all, other than bootlegs. They are not signed to anyone (not independent, not major, nothing). They obviously haven't had any press coverage.
WP:MUSIC gives us no leeway for this. And guys, sure you want more gigs, but don't write in here for them. Try writing in a web forum somewhere. This is not the right way to go about it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. [modded my vote, below] It is a really nice article, Freeninja, don't get me wrong, but is it
Wikipedia is not advertising, either. -- Taiichi «talk» 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
According to Freeninja's talk page: [72], he is the newest member of M.F.H, Kyle Economou. There are 3 other members, Doug Bernstein, Zach Alterman and Matthew "Pudi" Pudimott. I also note what Freeninja says in his main page: "kyle economou. not self promoting.". Good to know. Anyway, Kyle, I am sure that your band is great. But it wouldn't be in a regular encyclopaedia, would it? Maybe you should move this to a part of your user page. User:Freeninja/M.F.H. would be a good spot. Just copy all that you wrote and put it there. I am sure that we have no problems with you doing that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zordrac brings up a good alternative, probably the best choice in this situation. Userfy if possible, delete if not. -- Taiichi «talk» 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
e ] 20:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey

Delete. Not suitable for wiki, probably not even worth to be moved to wiktionary
Anthony Ivanoff 13:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

To the nominator: This nomination should be withdrawn immediately because you are mistaken for a few reasons:

Oy (the commonly used abbreviated form of Oy voy) is already in Wiktionary, see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Oy and

Um, just to point this out here, but Oi is an Aussie word. It may have its origin with Oy, but its not the same word. I am not sure when it started. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey more than qualifies for
Yiddish words and phrases used by English speakers
,

Oy vey are two Yiddish words that are more commonly pronounced Oy, but if you will care to look at the Oy page you will note that it is a disambiguation page, and that Oy vey and Oy are listed with other disambiguation possibilities.

This expression is used over twenty times in the Hebrew Bible, see my new additions to the Oy vey article itself for more information.

Thank you. IZAK 15:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this term is used all the time by
Kosher in that it has entered the English language through its use. It warrants a place here without question. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Merge to~~ List of catch phrases.[changed vote below] Otherwise really a dicdef, so move to wiktionary. -- Taiichi «talk» 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zordac. Durova 17:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

move to wikitionary. It's certainly notable and frequently used, but it's still a dictionary def and therefore not right for wikipedia. --
אריאל יהודה 20:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to Wiktionary and Merge to List of catch phrases fore the same reasons as cited above. Blackcats 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Capitalistroadster 18:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's a very widely-used term, but I can't see any potential for encyclopedic expansion of the dicdef, unlike
Kosher. (So far as I can tell, Schmuck is a proper-name disambig page, not an article about the Yiddish word.) MCB 19:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I could make some very tasteless comment about the death of Yiddish, but I won't. This is a common enough expression that I think it should stay. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, stereotyped expression.
Kappa 07:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Transwiki to Wiktionary.
Kosher article deals with Judaic dietary laws, not the modern slang term. If Oy vey referred to something as encyclopedic as either of those, then I would consider keeping it -but, being basically an expression or interjection, it's dicdef. Note that the slang meanings for the terms schmuck and kosher already do appear in Wiktionary (but not in Wikipedia). However, in retrospect, I do have doubts whether it qualifies as a "catch phrase", so I change my vote. -- Taiichi «talk» 18:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Yiddish language, which already mentions it as a Yiddish-derived idioms used in English, particularly in the United States. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - There are so few Yiddish words used in English, that IMO they all should have their own articles.
Kosher. I think that's it. A whopping great 4 of them. Words from other languages that have made their way in to the English language are notable too. Like C'est la vie, Eureka, Voila, Aloha and I think that's about it. Indeed, the words that moved from another language to become English words are more notable than those which started off English - especially those that have only recently moved. Anyway, that's my opinion. I was quite shocked that Schmuck is about people with a German surname of Schmuck. I think that's just wrong. What's more notable? A common surname in another language or a term used to mean "you no good person" (roughly)? The Yiddish Schmuck is way more notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep this famous Yiddish expression. IZAK 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I hadn't known the orgin of this expression until reading the article, but have wondered about it. Very informative for someone who doesn't know about it. Deathanatos 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous phrase: [73] mhunter 21:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, already has more information than would be appropriate in Wiktionary. --
t·c) 06:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep — Hillel

Strong Keep - This is a very commonly used expression and I've seen it around in several books, television programmes and even animations - most recently,
Poison Ivy uses it in Gotham Girls
- I was interested to find out where it comes from although I'm still a bit unsure about what it's actual meaning in English is from the article as it is currently. Please DO NOT DELETE, KEEP but just cleanup, expand and make the wording better for laypeople instead please?

Precedent is set by
Kosher, Eureka and Aloha
which all have their own articles. There is no valid reason for this article to be deleted, it is just as notable as others...

It also has more information than would be suitable for Wiktionary - It belongs on Wikipedia. --Mistress Selina Kyle 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To wiktionary. Yes, it is a common expression, yes, it belongs among the list of Yiddish phrases in English, yes, its origins are interesting. But none of these are reasons for an encyclopedia article. Common expressions belong in dictionaries, and their origins in the etymology section. And the parallels to other words don't work. "Eureka!" (the exclamation, as opposed to the city or the vacuum cleaner) is only incidentally mentioned in a disambiguation page (though you might think there's something to write about Eureka moments).
Kosher has lots of encyclopedic content. Now, I may be missing something. Maybe there is encyclopedic content to be had about Oy Vey. If so, let's see it. --Macrakis 06:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Mga 19:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definate Keep Hichris 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Izehar (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paperdoll Heaven

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. 30k google hits, though 0 Google Groups hits. Has traffic data on Alexa [74]. The article could be cleaned up, but it looks like it's probably marginally notable at least. --
Interiot 15:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Very strong keep per 2,148 alexa rank and 30,500 google. Comfortably meets
WP:WEB. It's got newspaper reports about it, etc etc. Fan sites. Very notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Honestly, combing through the google results, a large percentage of them look like SEO spam, I was having a hard time finding meaningful links to the site. But the Alexa rank does let it clear WP:WEB. --
Interiot 16:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry? I didn't check through the google too much, just enough to note that all the google hits were actually about this. It meets Alexa pretty easily though. 2,000 while 10,000 is the criteria. So we shouldn't need to worry about the google part. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interiot 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
And as I said I was doing keep firstly based on its alexa rank. You don't need to think beyond that if it meets that easily. Unless you can somehow fake an alexa rank. Can you? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess
Interiot 20:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I call Bullsh*t. No way do I believe that Alexa rank. It's been obviously manipulated to boost ad revenues, which is why those google links are so suspicious. Probably part of the same campaign. Probably used Alexa Booster: [[78]] (This, btw, is why Alexa rankings should be treated with care. Do you really believe that this ridiculous site could reach that kind of rank??????) Eusebeus 15:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parade of Death

It was not implied that Parade of Death was a released film and it was stated that it was a screenplay. The listing as Film was erroneously added by another user.

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep - AFD is not the place to discuss editing issues. If you believe that the facts are incorrect, then fix them in the article. You are correct about the film part though, as it has no ~~IMDB entry. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete after checking notability. Pls can people who make nominations for deletion make it clear what their reasons are, thanks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How is an article about a non-notable screenplay encyclopedic? What part of this article do you find verifiable? Did you read the article? Do that, then read
WP:V and come back, Zordrac. 165.189.91.148 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Watch the tone and insults thanks. Your nom didn't make any assertions that your reasons for nominating it were in relation to notoriety. Hence I presumed that your only issue was factual accuracy. Please don't insult long-term users with thousands of edits. Ta. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since notability is subjective, how is the notability judged? Would listing the copyright information satisfy the verifiability claim? Emcnutt

Let's see here... I would start by trying to establish the company that released the film (online); then checking such reliable sources as rottentomatoes.com or imdb.com or any other the movie review guides, either on paper or online (and if it's not listed in
movies.nytimes.com (not included in over 15,000 movie reviews published in the New York Times since 1981). I don't need to check the Leonard Maltin book -- Delete as an ad for a sequel for a nn motion picture. And, yes, the article explicity mentions it to be a purported film (how many plays have numbered sequels?). B.Wind 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The article mentions quite clearly that it is a screenplay, not a film. I'm not sure why you said it was explicitly mentioned to be a film as the word "film" isn't even found in the article. There would be no listing in film directories as it has never been made into a movie. Emcnutt
The last two subheadings in the article indicate otherwise. Either way you look at it (as a nn screenplay that wasn't made, or a nn motion picture, or an ad for a sequel for this nonentity), the argument reinforces the rationale for my original vote, which I shall not change. If the last two sections of the article are flat out wrong in indicating that there were a finished screenplay and movie (again, the giveaway is the announcement of a sequel), then the article should be speedily deleted. B.Wind 23:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Library of Congress / WGA registration numbers have been provided as verifiable sources. --Gkennedy34 03:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE.
Final tally at closing was: 1 Keep; 6 Delete; 6 discarded anons/socks. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reddingites

"I'm not sure how to qualify this one. It seems like a spurious essay about people in a small town in California. There is no attempt by the author to show that it is encyclopedia material.DeleteTheRingess 07:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
Harro5 07:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Anything of use should be added to
Harro5 08:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

This article seems fine to me. Presented in a knowledeable manner and very useful. DO NOT DELETE.

This afd nomination was
(operator) 15:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

This article was right on - I grew up there and the description is perfect.

Keep - Whilst it isn't an enormously notable term to describe people from Redding, California, it is nonetheless used a little bit [79], and there is confirmation that the information in the article is correct, too [80], [81] and others. Would consider a merge in to the town. Also should go through what is said and fact check it a bit. I couldn't find a source that said anything about what a Reddingite is usually like. From what I can gather, it just describes someone from Redding, and that's it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There could possibly be a one-line mention in the Redding article about Reddingites being the name of local residents. I would be very reluctant to merge because of the lack of references. You could possibly have it on the Redding talk page until references are found if people who have been working on that page are agreeable. Capitalistroadster 19:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. True insight into the life of a Redding-born organism. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.58.105 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 December 2005

Keep. Informative, written in a professional manner, and accurately describes the overwhelming trend of people that come out of Redding, California. I have heard the term "Reddingites" used in such cities as Chico, California, San Luis Obispo, California, and even Sacramento, California.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.10.245 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 December 2005

Delete. Pure original research. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Capitalistroadster and Calton. -- Kjkolb 07:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article could certainly use some refinement, and better citation of sources. However, overall, adequately describes Reddingite term along with social insight. With refinement, this article would be an informative and helpful piece.

Keep I live in San Diego and I know a few people that use the term Reddingites and I feel that this article is useful for out of towners to learn about the background that molds those that move out of the small town.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Game Central Network

They made a web page. Congrats! No need for a wikipedia entry, though Uucp 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet
T C 17:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - the only reason given for deleting this is WP:WEB which is a) Not policy [direct quote] and b) A POV notability standard. Therefore WP:WEB is not a valid reason. As for Alexa, it has great difficulty tracking sites that are outside the UK - I have a fairly reasonable search engine ranking for my site but Alexa is still showing the version from a few months ago. The other reason (Alexa) is therefore also invalid, and since no section of the Afd policy was quoted as justification for this, that makes it a keep in my book. Cynical

Delete You're right,
WP:WEB is not a policy, it is a guideline to be used to filter through all sorts of cruft. Notablity is an ephemeral concept of course but the article gives no indication of why this concept should apply to this site. Alexa is used as a neutral third party verification of traffic rankings (which are admittedly a poor rubric, but arguments can be made for other indicators of notability). DeathThoreau 00:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:WEB and a lack of notability, eg. [82] - Liberatore(T) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already speedied. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Carlino

Non-notable person, one-liner article. Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete nn, already listed for CSD as well.
CVU 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Article has already been speedied. Cyde, on the assumption that it wasn't an article that could be speedied, please put more effort into your nominations. Instead of simply saying "non-notable", explain why you don't believe the subject is notable. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.
e ] 18:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Residence Life

This page doesn't actually make proper English sense, but even if it did I don't think I'd consider its content inherently encyclopedic. I'm not even sure the term "residence life" is used much or that we need a definition... _└ UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 16:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~No vote~~. All I know is that the college I go to (BGSU) uses the term for its dorm management department. It's probably an American thing. At the same time I don't know how far beyond dic-deffing we can go. Nifboy 21:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ElKevbo. Nifboy 03:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into dormitory. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a major part of university administration and student life in American universities. The term is regularly used and it's a recognized profession with its own international organization (ACUHO-I), several annual international, national, and regional conferences and training events, and a regularly-published peer-reviewed journal. I haven't spent much time looking at the particulars of the article but the topic itself is certainly worthwhile and could be expanded into a much larger article with details about the OxBridge foundations of American residence life, the three areas of housing administration recognized by ACUHO-I (of which residence life is but one), RA recruitment, selection, and recruitment, programming requirements, living-learning communities, and so forth. I'll see what I can do to begin bringing this article up to par. --ElKevbo 07:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

excellent rewrite, the subject evidently does carry encyclopedic value, and I thus withdraw my nomination vote. does it not belong at Residence life however? (I didn't like to move it without knowledge on the subject myself). _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 08:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the consensus is on the capitalization of the two words. If pressed on the issue, I would lean towards capitalizing neither word. But it's a very minor issue and I am not inclined to worry about it.--ElKevbo 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was. Speedy merged. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents of The George Washington University

I don't see this merits its own article (and if it did it should be called "List of...". I think notable people should be merged with George Washington University and this article deleted. _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 16:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are other similar articles, such as President of Harvard University, but that one has more content. If it is merged, it should be redirected, not deleted. (Abstaining for now.) u p p l a n d 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

President of Harvard University does indeed have more content, and is quite a nice little article. If there is sufficient to say about the role of president at George Washington, perhaps a similar article at President of Washington University could be created... with the current info, however, I think a merger with the university article would be best. _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 17:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --
Bachrach44 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and delete is impossible (or at least very complicated), because it violates the
GFDL — we'd be using content but no longer crediting its author. If we merge, the original article should remain as a redirect. In any case, AfD is not the place for merges. I believe the ever-increasing trend towards nominator voting has fuelled this misconception: people think their nomination is no different from any other vote; it requires no more effort, and provides no less in the way of options. If you nominate an article for deletion, it means you want the article deleted, or, if not, are acting in proxy for someone who does. It's bad enough trying to vote instead of writing a nomination for an article, without then making your vote "merge". Merges can be carried out without AfD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Then perhaps "merge" wasn't the right way of expressing what I thought should happen. I feel the article should be deleted because "i don't see it merits its own article" per nomination. I made the point that IF (and it is an if, I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to know) any of these people need to be listed they should be added to the university article. Doing so wouldn't violate the GFDL (edit histories could be merged if the need be) but in any case - it is purely a list of names which we are talking about, so there is no "original content" with which an author needs credit. I'm not in favour of a simple "copy and paste content to other article and make this a redirect" or I would not have listed on AfD. _└ UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. To Fuddlemark -- Merging is one of the legitimate vote options available on AFD - please read the introduction to the section. If you feel it should no longer be an option, I invite you to propose a change to the AFD process. 23skidoo 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the options available on AfD, thanks. Merge is a legitimate option on AfD, yes; but we do not list articles that we want merged. We merge them instead. AfD is articles for deletion, not articles that should have something drastic done to them but I don't know what. Following on from "don't nominate merges", you can expect "don't nominate stuff you just want cleaned up" and "don't nominate stuff you don't want deleted just to make a point", coming soon to a theatre near you. 'Course, as I mentioned above, if we didn't have a large subset of nominators attempting to vote instead of writing a decent nomination, this would probably cut down on the problem a little bit. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main George Washington University article already has too many lists. --Oldak Quill 03:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to
Counts of Bouillon. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Counts of Bouillon

Listcruft, a category should suffice. Stifle 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to
Duke of Lower Lotharingia and I'm not sure why. In any case I wouldn't call this listcruft, that's the horrible, useless, poorly defined, nearly infinte lists like List of people who drink milk that WP is full of. This one is at least well-defined and severely limited to those who held the title. It just doesn't need to be a separate article. -R. fiend 16:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Count of Bouillon redirected to Duke of Lower Lorraine because that's where the list of counts originall was (as a vassal of Lower Lorraine, or so I understood at the time). This is a perfectly valid list whatever the title - move and expand as R. fiend says is a good idea, since there aren't so many of them that a list would overwhelm an article. By the way, Stifle, check out
List of office-holders for dozens of other similar lists. Adam Bishop 17:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per Adam Bishop, or move to
Count of Bouillon. u p p l a n d 17:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and then move to
Count of Bouillon. Valid list. Hiding talk 20:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Violent Threats

NN, and little unencyclopaedic content anyway The JPS 16:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Author makes no assertion of notability, and article is orphaned. Yeah. JPS, please put more effort into your nominations: instead of saying "NN", explain why you think something is non-notable (references to Google or
WP:MUSIC usually impress). Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, fair point, but it seems unfair that the AFD nominati9n should take longer to write than the original author has cared for the actual article. The JPS 01:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as band vanity. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK
) 17:44, Dec. 13, 2005

delete per Freakofnurture _└ UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the band doesnt seem worth being on Wikipedia - (Erebus555 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.
e ] 18:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Whisper number

Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. At the moment the article is at best a dicdef and at worst an advertisement for whispernumber.com. When I placed the speedy tag on it the whispernumber.com's were linked.-- Syrthiss 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete. Dicdef. However, first graf here is a copyvio [83] and all references to whispernumber.com in the text should be deleted. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki and delete per nom _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a dictionary article about a phrase. It is a stub encyclopaedia article about whisper numbers. We don't delete stubs where there is potential for expansion, as research reveals to be the case here. The solution to the fact that the article focussed solely upon a single web site is not to delete it. Keep. Uncle G 19:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to change my vote to Keep per the article's current form...tho I removed the getwhispers.com site as afaict it has nothing to do with actual whisper numbers. It looked like it was a collection of links. I didn't delve incredibly deeply as I became annoyed with the 5 blocked popups in the first 10 seconds. --Syrthiss 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and well done to whoever did the rewrite. It is now a useful article. Capitalistroadster 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to the article in its current form. --EngineerScotty 22:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and wikify rewritten article. B.Wind 01:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Rob 08:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gore v. Harris (Harris II)

Wikipedia is not a legal journal. Stifle 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sez who? Okay, I agree the article as it stands isn't very encyclopaedic. But it could be improved greatly, if only it received a little attention. As a general rule, I find that the cases people know about and want to write about — e.g. the ones we hear about in Law class — are such because they are notable. I don't think lawcruft is something likely to cause problems for Wikipedia in future. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were simply titled
Florida election recount, but nobody's gonna type in the title above, so delete. Blackcats 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep cleanup and expand. Notable court case but needs references. Possibly move to
Gore v. Harris. Capitalistroadster 19:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per Capitalistroadster. DeathThoreau 00:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a huge case! It practically decided the future of the nation five years ago! I don't think we'd be in Iraq if Gore had won ... but anyway, enough politics, just keep it. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Capitalistroadster. Tempted to say "merge and delete," but the outcome of Gore v. Harris has substantial implications on U.S. election policy and the role of the judiciary. These do need to be added to make the notability issue clear, though. Tim Pierce 03:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say merge and delete, please. Like, ever. There's only one case I can think of where a page should not be kept as a redirect to a merged article, and that's when the original title is clearly inappropriate (e.g. defamatory). Even then, we still keep the article, just at a different title (usually as a subpage of the merge target). The
GFDL requires that we credit our contributors, even if the work they did took place on an article outside the merge target fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, cleanup massively. I took election law... vaguely recall covering this case as a distinct chapter in the whole debacle.
T
06:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Emphatic merge into United States Supreme Court) (sorry, force of habit). B.Wind 01:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

1775-2005

fork of
Bachrach44 16:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Useless page, awful title. -R. fiend 17:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eeugh! Someone more polite than I should consider taking this user under their wing and teaching them how to use Wikibooks or something. Anyway. The article. Well, it's an unnecessary and unencyclopaedic (though I dare say interesting) fork, which incidentally fails to take into account the need for a geographically neutral POV (if nothing else, don't assume that everyone will immediately think "America! Land of the free, home of the brave!" at the mention of "1775"). Don't forget to look at spinoff articles, like Political Story. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and also remove poorly-titled subarticles per fuddlemark. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with sub article Political Story. Utterly pointless. _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 17:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Story. sjorford (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is overly broad, could be condensed into a list of Events in United States History or something like that. Otherwise this would be a very long article (and US history certainly doesn't just start with 1775, nor end with 2005).DeathThoreau 00:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is too generally conceived and broad. Needs a much more specific title, to say nothing of what's already written. Zaorish

Delete Too short, too broad, probably already covered Sceptre (Talk) 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too general, no scope for real imprevement. M A Mason 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Citypodding

Ad for a website with no alexa rank masquerading as a neologism that no one has heard of. - Bobet 17:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: advertising. Cinabrium 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it smells like spam....
CVU 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

delete advertising _└ UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete advertising. And the correct term for this is "Hobo with an IPod." --Mareino 23:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

EPL Talk

website advertising Melaen 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to pass
T C 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, irrelevant Cinabrium 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non encyclopedic
CVU 17:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete for being largely identical (except with different company names) to the article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Stanley Chile S A where editors concluded that this was an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia to lend legitimacy to a fraud. Uncle G 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Stanley Investments,Inc

The only reference in the whole Internet to a company called Morgan Stanley Investments, Inc. is this Wikipedia article, entered by an anonymous user. Google references regarding the name of its chairman point to a Chilean character, once rejected as a candidate to the Senate because of not having proved completion of secondary school, and identified by several sources as a swindler. The same anonymous editor inserted false data in Morgan Stanley associating this company (and other "phantom" company called Morgan Stanley Chile S A) with the "real" Morgan Stanley. This article seems to be a candidate for speedy deletion. Cinabrium 17:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising, non-notable, unless good verifiable evidence of this company's importance is presented prior to expiration of AfD discussion. If this were shown to be a important company with a strangely misleading name there would be some point in keeping it and rewriting it to reflect a neutral point of view, but I don't think it is. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Reply to these false statements: Cinabrium in writting false statements abour Morgan Stanley Investments, and deleting without reason: It is false that " the chilean character " was rejected for senate post due to not having proved the completion of secondary school. Further, the chilean newspaper "La Tercera" published a rectification article saying that it was wrong to say that this man involved with Morgan Stanley Investments did not have proper qualifications. A Licence was issued by the chilean education authority stating that under file 05/1468/29/07/1997 was duly validated his High School Diploma issued in the U.S. on 1967. The company Morgan Stanley Chile, S.A. is a duly formed company under the chilean corporate laws, and as this article in cowardly written, we can't take Cinabrium to Court for his slander. I take full responsability of this statement as attorney at law. Signed: Jaime Ortuzar - phone 664-0000.-

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Reid

A soldier in WW1 and WW2 but not notable. "My grandpa" vanity. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomBill 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truly a man who served his country in the finest manner possible, alas exemplary service for the greater good is not enough to warrant a WP entry. Delete. --
אריאל יהודה 00:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.
e ] 18:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

List of suburbs in wellington

Covered by Category:Wellington_urban_districts. Barefootguru 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not covered by that category at all: the category covers four cities and only the suburbs that have pages so far. Robin Patterson 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rename to List of suburbs in Wellington and cleanup for now. It would be good if we had any Kiwis especially Wellingtonians to look at this. Capitalistroadster 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, includes suburbs which don't yet have articles. I've wikified the list. I'm somewhat familiar with Wellington; there are suburbs here I've never heard of, but that in itself means little. Rename to proper capitalisation, of course.-gadfium 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now Strong keep, the article has changed significantly and for the better over the last few hours.-gadfium 03:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A category (which is probably the other option to this page) isn't really satisfactory — it wouldn't show suburbs without an article (as Gadfium mentions), it wouldn't show which are official designations versus informal names (as this page now does), and it wouldn't show a map (as this now does). Also, the existing category seems to cover places from all over the greater Wellington region, while this page sticks to Wellington proper, so they're not really equivalent. -- Vardion 23:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Article is a good standard now since recent edits. The rename to capitalized "wellington" is probably a good idea. -- SimonLyall 05:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to the correct capitalisation is definitely called for. Robin Patterson 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep: No good reason for deleting it has been given (and a purported reason was based on misinformation); the article has improved recently, but that's no justification for proposing a deletion. Robin Patterson 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (who has just spent nearly an hour dealing with 95 pages on Wikipedia Maori that were spammed in the space of two minutes)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Vardion's reasons. Ppe42 12:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (a Wellingtonian).[reply]

keep: You’ve convinced me, the article has merits—particularly after its radical improvement since I posted the deletion notice. Barefootguru 18:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rename, for reasons already mentioned. --LesleyW 11:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but definitely needs to be renamed. Stombs 05:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE.
Final tally at closing: 1 Keep; 5 Delete; 4 discarded anons/socks. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Music

This article about a message board has been tagged for speedy deletion multiple times. Its content was recently replaced with an unrelated article about trees, which was then vandalized Bill 18:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I like the idea of having an ILM entry, it has been infuential. However, with its large user base, there are tons of trolls, many of which will (and have) taken great joy in defacing the page. Excessivereason 15:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - content is non-notable, verging on the nonsensical. --Whouk (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Velvetsmog 19:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Results 1 - 10 of about 342,000 for ilxor. (0.08 seconds), it's been cited and discussed in newspapers like the New York Times and The Guardian, enough articles on her actually mention discussions on it (see the entries for MIA and Prolapse), I would venture as far as to say only someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia would request a deletion for this entry.

Comment this vote for keep is from the same ip address that replaced the article with one about pine trees. Must not think its too important.Bill 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, and write one about The O'Jays' 1975 #1 R&B hit single. --FuriousFreddy 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because despite the vandalism, it's an influential board on the net music scene.

Keep. Influential music board.
rodii 04:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or Delete, it's up to you, but if you're going to keep, then for god's sake get some better content than that in - none of the names cited are "much-loved internet personalities" they are music writers, apart from the last-named, who is a homophobic nuisance poster on the board (who is also probably responsible for putting the article up in the first place).

Excuse me, but I am that "homophobic nuisance poster". I didn't put up the article in the first place (it was Tuomas, don't you know) and I am an internet personality. Just the other day, someone walked up to me and said "I KNOW YOU FROM THE INTERNET. TO BE SPECIFIC, I LOVE MUSIC!" -- Love, Esteban Buttez
I'm sure the folks at Wikipdeia are fascinated by this, "Esteban".
Whatever that means. Also, I hope you know that I have several gay and lesbian friends. One of them works at Officeworks, and he gets me discounts there now and again. He's such a nice guy. -- Cheers Bigears! Love, Esteban Buttez!

Keep. The content of the article could be improved, but ILM/ILX is of cultural significance.

Delete. As per the above exchange, any entry about "I Love Music" is likely to be persistently changed back and forth for "humorous" purposes by board trolls, such as "Esteban", above. I'm a long-term regular poster on "I Love Music", it's a fun place, but to be honest I really have my doubts about its "cultural significance", despite its appearing in newspapers, and some of the other regulars being published authors etc.

Is Wiki reserved for items of "cultural significance" now?

Re-write I would say keep, but only if more details are added & it is made more unbiased Computerjoe 18:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge theater

Article reads like a review. Seems to me to be an advertisement for the theater. Unless major rework is done, I vote DeleteTheRingess 23:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like advertisement and it's a orphan article. --Mecanismo 15:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle 10:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Send to cleanup; looks like it might have some merit, and it hasn't even been to cleanup yet. Peyna 13:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion.
e ] 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Unverified at the very least (which NY Times article was that?), it reeks of PR and vanity. --Calton | Talk 00:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to
e ] 18:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Linda O. Johnston

Unencyclopedic. Most likely a vanity page since the only author is User:Lojohnston. --Quasipalm 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Velvetsmog 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Many hits with two major book retailers, [84] [85] and decent google results. [86] Article needs help, but not to be deleted. D-Rock 20:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio. I would have said keep as she meet
WP:BIO, but this appears to be a copyvio of [87] (under May 7th, about 1/4 way down). -- JLaTondre 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE (also per author's request). Owen× ☎ 16:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paris/history

Already have History of Paris. No need for another one! Also bad title. --Kilo-Lima 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is deletion.
Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is down the hall. Nifboy 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; article will not be deleted. Mindmatrix 16:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-Canadian authors

not another one. sigh. "List of $Religion/$Nationalisty $job" is just more list-cruft. (Unless we want
Bachrach44 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment That's List of Methodist dentists and that's my line. Durova 23:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google hits: Methodist dentist= 190, Puerto Rican plumber= 48, Italian dentist= 241, Jewish Author= 60,700. -- JJay 04:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL Durova 17:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's wrong with it? Perhaps move to List of Jewish-Canadian authors. --Kilo-Lima 18:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Valuable as a category IMO. Velvetsmog 19:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unmaintainable listcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit for relevance. Nothing wrong with lists of people whose religion influences their work. Durova 19:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless you plan to include every Jewish Canadian who has ever written any sort of book, this will come down to an arbitrary 'notability standard' and is therefore non-WP Cynical 20:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought this was the sort of thing catagories were for? D-Rock 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This actually duplicates a much more extensive subsection already present at List of Canadian Jews. I'd redirect it rather than deleting, personally. Bearcat 20:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- BUT Should be turned into a proper literary history-type article. Nothing wrong with using this list (and the one under "List of Canadian Jews") as a stub to get going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.211.6 (talk • contribs)

Keep. -- JJay 01:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite as per 70.51.211.6. Unlike, say, the plumbers article possibility (or other lists that I have voted to deleted) one's religion and ethnic background can be a relevant factor for an author. See Mordecai Richler, for example, who pretty much set the standard for Jewish-Canadian authors. 23skidoo 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Methodist dentists in my neighborhood, and even if there were, they'd be important for their professional skills, not their faith. D e nni ☯ 03:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, get rid of this listcruft.Gateman1997 05:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So well said. -- JJay 05:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking is so passe.Gateman1997 06:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

?? -- JJay 07:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - perhaps useful as a category though... Blackcats 07:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's an arbitrary distinction. -- Kjkolb 08:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mamma mia, that'sa nasty article stuck in youra tooth! Er, yeah, anyway. No definition of 'Jewish' (race? religion? was it important to the author?), no definition of 'key' and no definition of 'author' even - we've got poets, historians, novelists, oh my. Basically, it's a list that some guy wrote, and not all of those are suitable for Wikipedia. --Last Malthusian 10:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that nothing is defined, because the list was there for all of six minutes before
Bachrach44 constructively engaged the contributor with his AfD notice. The editor had been here two days, and has since indicated that he has left the site- so maybe biting the newbies applies as well. I might have done the same thing, had I been treated like a vandal without explanation. -- JJay 17:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I've never bought the 'give it time' argument. If a new page is, in its first draft, going to be unsuitable for Wikipedia, then it can be worked on in a user subpage or, for that matter, in Notepad. And it can still be worked on after it's deleted. If it's substantially improved and recreated, it won't be eligible for speedy deletion. So in summary, there's no need to use the namespace as a building site. --Last Malthusian 20:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I urge the voters here to join Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession. Quite a few of these nominations have come up in the last month and the votes aren't always consistent. Durova 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a sufficiently interesting segment of Canadian writing to merit coverage. The article could stand some significant expansion to provide context and note historical developments. Not having any knowledge in the area - beyond having read works by a number of the authors listed - I can't make those contributions myself. But it is something I'd read if available. --GrantNeufeld 00:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per KL. Owen× ☎ 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Political Story

Inaccurate stub, all accurate info is already at Continental Congress.

Delete. Gazpacho 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Punkmorten 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1775-2005. sjorford (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pov fork. --
אריאל יהודה 00:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Redundant topic, title is far too general, general noobage. If the author is reading this: Please, instead of creating a new article on a very well-known topic, please look at History of the United States or Continental Congress and add/edit what facts you can. Or, write an article on a more obscure topic that you're familiar with. Use "Search" to find which topics have already been written about.--Zaorish 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork and what Zaorish said. Stifle 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calton Radio

An Orange internet radio station. Written up in the first person with hopelessly POV content. -- RHaworth 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no free web host. Gazpacho 19:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the noms. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Two editors have suggested that the article be redirected to
Flex lexical analyzer is not (from what I gather from the article) a programming language. So why redirect a programming language of any kind to it? Just because of a similiarity in the name? That seems sub-optimal. Consequently, I am interpreting the redirect votes as "delete". If you have valid reasons why I should reconsider, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Flex_programming_language

NOT notable. I have somewhat improved the original advertising article, but the language is really not notable (not to be confused with other computer related meanings of Flex), so it probably should be deleted. If not deleted, it should be improved. Kyknos 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable in-house tool and redirect to
Flex lexical analyzer. Gazpacho 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not notable, at least yet. They have over 2000 downloads but I found no mention of actual external use. Written by two people, used just in small company (alsoft isn't well known brand), no revolutionary features claimed. The article and Czech variant [88] were created by one of language authors. Do not redirect to the parser as it is misleading. Pavel Vozenilek 23:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Egg ✉ 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
REBOL -- it seems to be targeted at the same audience as Perl or Python, but it has no visibility to speak of, at least partly because it's proprietary.) Haikupoet 05:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – This isn't well known language, but it has some interesting ideas and I have read some articles about them. I don't use it (it doesn't work on my platform and I prefer mainstream languages), but I don't agree that it is completely insignificant. --Petr.adamek 10:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Tom.k 10:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Haikupoet. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The People's Republic of Navassa

nn micronation created by a couple of high school students. Completely unverifiable. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a hoaxBill 20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten 20:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gateman1997 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rubbish Deyyaz 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, joke. Pavel Vozenilek 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Merovingian 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by
e ] 01:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I love you

Wikipedia is not instructive! Too minor aswell. If it was to stay, then it would never be complete. --Kilo-Lima 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I love you is now a redirect to love. Such a redirect was deleted previously. Punkmorten 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 20:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TMOP

non-encyclopedic

Delete non-encyclopedic JoJan 19:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I stick with my earlier Speedy Del nom. -^demon 19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fulton

Not notable and not fit for an encyclopedia --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyzasatya (talk • contribs)

Keep Correction:WAS fit for an encyclopedia. Can be fixed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.52.246 (talk • contribs)

Delete. While there are 1,200 Google hits, most aren't about him. [89] There is a lack of verifiable third party evidence about him. The most interesting thing is not even mentioned in the article [90].Capitalistroadster 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:ALL of them are, you just dont know how important he was to Newgrounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maricon (talk • contribs)
Note Maricon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a now-banned pagemove vandal. -- Curps 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable enough for me Deyyaz 22:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've never heard of him. Is he a notable animator? If the article is to stay, it should really talk about why he is notable. At the moment its just a throw-away note about the number of pieces submitted to Newgrounds. What did he create of lasting significance? I suggest someone who knows about him expand the article while the AfD takes place. --Billpg 23:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. --Iustinus 21:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its been 4 days with only one edit and no significant expansion. Sorry. --Billpg 21:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Leave open for recreation.) --Billpg 21:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has information on all sorts of obscure topics, why single this one out as not being notable enough? I believe one of the reasons for having a public access encyclopedia is to be able to cover topics that would have never made it into a commercially available encyclopedia. --Elfer 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. No harm in keeping it. Matt Gies 07:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd change my vote to keep too if only someone would tell me what he's done to deserve my attention. I could make 100 entries to Newgrounds and commit suicide in an afternoon. If his work is notable then please tell me about it. (Which is why I added the note that the article should be open for re-creation.) --Billpg 10:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn).
e ] 18:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Liz George

Saw this listed as a CSD. It's not, but it raises an interesting question: are CNN correspondents notable? I'd vote to keep but I think this deserves a fair hearing. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Nomination withdrawn. Request other admin to speedy keep. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This (short) bio falls under
WP:Bio : notable television personalities. I found 17,400 Google hits under her name. JoJan 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above. PJM 22:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I can get a speedy keep I can withdraw my nomination and close the AfD. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. -- JJay 00:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as patent nonsense. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman prasad darbari lal

advertisement

Delete - advertisement JoJan 20:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BDM Productions

An enternaimnet company, no claim to notability. Article is written in sarcastic tone, may be a joke or an attack. Couldn't find info on this company through Google (there are a host of "BDM Productions" on USA, Canada and UK). JoaoRicardo ^talk 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't even seem to find any evidence that this company or it's productions actually seem to exist, most searchs on google mostly seem to find the wikipedia article. FredOrAlive 22:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suspect it's a Firefly in-joke. The Firefly movie "Serenity" was known as the "Big Damn Movie" (BDM) after one of
Jayne Cobb's lines in the television show. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday by six

Fails WP:Music, plus original research to boot. Coolgamer 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OR?? -- JJay 00:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete unanimously. Looks like a hoax. Friday (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get Back to Rock

Someone nominated it inappropriately for speedy, stating it is a hoax File Éireann 20:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the talk page discussion seems to imply. Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yes. Google comes up with nothing for me on this one. The official AC/DC site has nothing about it. I tagged it with a request for sources yesterday, but I'm not surprised that none have come up. FreplySpang (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 31 Google hits for "Get Back to Rock" AC/Dc none of which verify this. [91]. Capitalistroadster 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Roisterer 08:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sooner we've gotten rid of this truthless article, the better. --
pour) 20:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.

Delete. Crystal-ballism. Cnwb 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sarah Ewart 01:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nernberg

Looks like a vanity page. "many, many awards" is a claim to notability, though. Austrian 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nernberg is a notable character, with many contributions to the pizza business in New Jersey and New York.
he is also most likely insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknernberg (talk • contribs)

See also Nernberg corollary. Punkmorten 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable bio Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Tom Harrison. DeathThoreau 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious vanity; just look at the article creator. --Apostrophe 05:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to
e ] 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Guide to Warez

Not an encyclopedia article. The subject is, I presume, properly dealt with in warez and related articles. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be linked to warez as well needs tonnes of editting. Just because you don't agree with warez doesn't mean you should stop other people from reading about how one "does warez". Keep --129.97.84.62 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete - definitely not an encyclopedia article, written in wrong tone. Drdisque 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, written in first person, POV, unencyclopedic. Rhobite 21:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic. Edgar181 21:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, published in 2600 Hacker Quarterly Summer 2004. Off to mark it as such. FreplySpang (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio, per freplyspang. --
אריאל יהודה 00:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Groudon and Kyogre's location

A how-to-guide for the newer Pokemon games. Punkmorten 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-encyclopedic Deyyaz 22:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T.H.T.S.L.E.E.

neologism Austrian 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Deyyaz 22:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - every single google hit seems to be for a song by a band named El Stew (all searches for THTSLEE -Stew are foreign language pages mentioning the same song). There are no hits for the expansion of the acronym. -Meegs 00:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy. A good-faith effort was made to make a Wikipedia article. This article runs counter to
WP:NOR, so cannot remain in article space. But I don't think anyone will have a problem with userfication (except possibly for the original author of the article). Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

History of North High Street, Columbus, Ohio, between State Route 161 and Morse Road

Article is not encyclopedic. Frenchgeek 21:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I appreciate the effort that user George has put in, this is too granular for an encyclopedia. Any history should go in the Columbus article or if it is very full, there should be a history of Columbus, Ohio. Capitalistroadster 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that people pounce on an article with a narrow title. It is easy to identify such an article, and kudos to the first person to nominate it for destruction. This must be a sport on Wikipedia. Anyway, what about the 6000 uncited words on Winston Churchill? There must be twenty books in my local library that cover Churchill better than that page. What I was trying to put up was new information, not available anywhere else. I don't think you can judge the usefulness of this information now - maybe after a few years or decades. Think of the details historians would love to have about Lincoln's life, but they weren't recorded because they were deemed to be trivial at the time. People here are too quick to judge. I would strongly argue that an article should get at least a week or better 3 months before it becomes possible to target it for deletion. How can ideas get off the ground otherwise? george 00:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains information about very local history. You may not be interested in the postwar Suburban development in the midwest, but others may be. This article gives the development history of a stretch of North High Street in Columbus, Ohio over the past 50 years. I am trying to create a web of interlocking pages covering Worthington, Ohio and north Columbus, Ohio. A lot of work went into researching each property and photographing it. Why should I put a lot of effort into creating Wikipedia pages if they are going to be deleted? Some guy from Maine doesn't think north Columbus, Ohio history is interesting, so he throws a rock at my work. I just don't see the point of investing any further effort in Wikipedia if its going to be erased as quickly as it is installed. This REALLY pisses me off. george 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I believe you answered your own question as to the inappropriateness of the article by stating that it contains "very local history". Secondly, maybe this information can be merged into the article about Columbus, Ohio or Worthington, Ohio, or even an article entitled Postwar suburban development in the Midwest. I do not believe that one section of a street merits its own entry. Frenchgeek 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to torpedo my work. Maybe, after my article is deleted I can console myself by reading the crucially important Miss USA article. george 22:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why should very local information be deleted from Wikipidia? Given the low cost of digital storage, why can't the detail continue down to street level history? Digital storage is cheap! Why limit Wikipidia to a broad brush overview? How do you know what someone will be interested in ten years from now? george 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before starting a wikipedia article, the most crucial question to ask yourself is: "Can this article one day be a featured article?" If the answer to that question is no, then the next question should be: "where can I place this information for it to be easily found and appreciated?" If I give the impression that I'm trying to torpedo your work, I'm sorry. I just think that there is a better place for this information to be. Frenchgeek 23:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then how will you ever build a base of knowledge? I can't believe that you would eliminate carefully researched information from what is essentially a limitless storage medium. You know what the historians value most when looking at the past? Its the detailed, specific, mundane day-to-day details of life. If that information is blocked from Wikipidia today because its "too granular", then how will it be available to Sociologists in 2050? I guess they will have to content themselves with reading about Miss USA to glean what our society was like. Another point - this page wasn't even up ONE DAY before you decided to delete it. Why don't you let other people read it before you shoot it down? If information is a fractal, then the 'Politically Correct' Wikipedians would eliminate all the whorls and spikes leaving a dull, bland outline. Make room for the details of the real world. george 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, this is turning into a REALLY BAD EXPERIENCE. I'm wasting all this time defending my article when I could be working on it instead. You guys can go ahead and delete this - I give up. Also, I'm through with Wikipidia - its so much easier to destroy other people's work than add new, researched information! I think added information should be treasured, not wiped out without much thought about the broader implications. THE PAGE WASN'T EVEN UP ONE DAY before someone casually decided it needs to go. Words cannot express how FURIOUS I am about this crap. george 23:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poor guy, I feel sorry for him, I really do. He obviously put some work and some research into this and feels like he's under attack. Unfortunately, this just isn't something suitable for Wikipedia. You should probably go make a personal site and put this information on there. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very, very, very specific in scope, but also well-written, interesting, referenced, and verifiable. Should be moved to a shorter and more elegant title, probably by omitting the "between State Route 161 and Morse Road" part. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would have to be expanded to include the whole high street. Currently it does exactly what it says on the tin - it covers that stretch of road and no further. It has the unwieldly long title, somewhat ironically, because its scope is so narrow. --Last Malthusian 09:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Vote. I agree with Cyde Weys in that this article is of interest now and will be of interest, presumably in the future. However, micro-level detail like this may well be best on the author's own website. There is simply nothing notable about this district that would merit an encyclopaedic article. Incidentally, the arguments about the low cost of digital storage being a reason to 'Keep' are specious. All digital storage costs something, and the folk paying for it have every right to set terms of reference for its use. Eddie.willers 05:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing Wikipedia says is that this is not a paper encyclopedia. This article wasn't in anybody's way. It was still being developed. It was barely up before it got shot down. As far as being notable, that is a purely subjective argument. I don't think the Miss USA article is notable. Lets go delete that. I have to believe that killing articles is a sport - why else would somebody pounce on it after it has only been up a few hours? I think it is wrong and narrow minded to wipe this out. george 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, and there doesn't seem to be anything significant that differentiates this stretch of road from any other American suburban strip. Perhaps merge any relevant content into Columbus, Ohio. Blackcats 07:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was up for only 2 hours. I was still working on it. Why isn't there a one week moratorium on wrecking other people's work? george 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the scope of this article is far too narrow to be on Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be of use in a Wiki specific to Columbus, Ohio, Ohio, or even the United States? — JIP | Talk 07:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Finding it difficult to keep the snide comments back when the newbies
WP:BITE themselves. --Last Malthusian 10:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps you should read the article and provide specific reasons why it should be deleted. It appears from your comment that the reason you feel it should be deleted is because it was written by a Newbie. Also, if you read what you wrote carefully, perhaps you could see how other people might feel that it is a snide comment. george 00:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Although it's a good article and worth hosting elsewhere, it's of no interest to anyone who doesn't live in the area, and therefore doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Your continual self-evidently irrelevant comparisons with
Wikipedia policy as to what is notable. And as for being snide, you're basically throwing a tantrum because someone won't give you free hosting. There you go. --Last Malthusian 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP, If the point of Wikipedia articles is only to add information that may some day be a featured article than only popular information will be entered. The point of an encyclopedia is that the information contained would be ENCYCLOPEDIC and all encompassing. I live not far from this part of High Street and find the information intriguing and relevant to me. Please keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk • contribs)

Delete. I respect the time that the author has put into this work, but I do not think the subject is relevent enough to warrant an encyclopedia mention, as it is very narrow in scope. --jackohare 18:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is new information, not available anywhere else. I suppose if I had written another 1500 uncited words about
Madonna (entertainer) then I would be a stellar Wikipedia citizen. This article wasn't even up for 2 hours before the french guy shot it down. I think you should give an article at least a week. I know the title is long - once you put it into delete-mode you can't fix the title. Information that seems trivial now may be much more important years from now. I think that deleting articles is a sport on Wikipedia and by being trigger happy, you kill ideas that are still budding. george 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, User:Frenchgeek seems to be American. — JIP | Talk 17:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Looks good. We need more like this. -- JJay 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One thing that influences me is that if we decide a small stretch of one road somewhere in America is worthy of inclusion, theoretically either a) we should create similar articles to cover every road everywhere (this one demonstrates no especial notability), or b) we're basically implying that this street deserves special attention. If it's kept, someone is going to come across it (how, I have no idea, as I can't think what articles would link to it, but...) and think "Why is this on here?" It's all very well to say "Because Wikipedia is not paper" (which is, let's face it, a truism), but they aren't going to understand that. --Last Malthusian 09:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, any unique information on Wikipedia is going to get killed off and it will simply cover topics that are covered much better elsewhere. It boggles my mind that people can copy information about
Madonna (entertainer) out of Cosmo magazine and that is considered important, but unique, new information is not? How do you know where this will lead? Did you read the part about Ann-Ton's restaurant? As far as I know this is the only place that had been pulled together. You say the street is not notable - well that is a purely subjective assertation. Also, you don't have to cover every street in Wikipedia - only the ones that members write articles about! Consistency is the hobgoblin of... george 14:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
You seem to have a weirdly obsessive hatred of Madonna, if you don't mind me saying so. Anyway, about Ann-Ton's restaurant, well, what about it? It opened, it got burgled, it closed, the owners married... this is not information that belongs in an encyclopaedia, no matter how well-written (which it is). 'Uniqueness' is not a virtue if the reason it's unique is because no-one else has any reason to be interested in it. And if it's new information, it's
original research and shouldn't be here anyway. --Last Malthusian 15:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - is this area actually definable as a distinct neighbourhood separate from everything else around it? --
Francs 2000 14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, here's an example of an article on a topic that nobody has ever heard of:
Gaston Lagaffe is not notable. If there is room for this sort of article in Wikipedia, then there is room for mine. george 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't particularly think so. Pretty much everyone in western Europe has heard of Gaston Lagaffe. I don't think anyone outside Columbus, Ohio have heard of North High Street, Columbus, Ohio. In fact, I would hazard a guess that more people have heard of Gaston Lagaffe than Columbus, Ohio (but not the entire state of Ohio). Unfortunately, many Americans think that if they haven't heard of something in Europe, then no one has. — JIP | Talk 18:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly George, this kind of stuff isn't what Wikipedia is for. I apologize for the effort you put in, but imagine if we had an article for the development of every strip of road in the United States. It would become unmanagable. I wish you the best in working on other articles. -^demon 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, mea culpa. I surrender. george 18:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would be reasonable for george to keep and maintain this article as a subpage of his user page here while he works on setting up a "Columbus Ohio Wiki" or some such MediaWiki site. Blackcats 20:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too crufty. Grue 21:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, verifiable and a usefully detailed history. Does a nice job of avoiding the promotional character and POV writing that are often pitfalls for local articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not encyclopedic and a bit too crufty. We can't have historys of every little thing that been created in here. Sorry --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - move to author's User page. This is an awkward call, but if this were a similar series of pictures of a more widely-known street (Rodeo Drive, Biscayne Boulevard, Michigan Avenue, for example), I'd have just as difficult a time accepting it as a stand-alone article. Put it on the author's user page and it would still be available for people to see. B.Wind 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also... this is more of a tour of this stretch of Ohio highway. The history seems secondary to the pictures. B.Wind 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said above, this is not an article, it's a virtual tour of a not terribly historic area. Having this opens the door for anyone to upload pictures of every street corner in their hometown and wax nostalgic: "This is the interesction of Homsby and Splate, there's a Mobil station here now, but before that it was an A&P. Across the street is Teddy's Bowling, it's been open since 1978, but was renovated in '86." Not in an encyclopedia, please. -R. fiend 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Man, is this still going? I thought the usual AfD period was 5 days, this is 10 days old. (Glancing at the 13/12 log I don't see any other AfDs still open.) Anyway, I count 11 votes for Delete and 5 for Keep - that counts B.Wind's 'Userfy' as a Delete, which inclusionists may see as controversial, but then that's also counting the author's Keep, despite the fact that the same author has stated that the article was created in error. Anyway... only a 63% majority to delete, which some admins see as too low, but the sole contributor's "mea culpa" statement must count for something. --Last Malthusian 02:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a pretty clear delete to me. A userfy vote is a vote to delete from the wikipedia article space, which is the subject of this vote. I have no problems with it in the userspace, as long as it is deleted here (hence my "delete" vote). Had I realized how old this was I probably would have just closed it as delete, rather than voting. If nothign else happens soon, I may do just that. -R. fiend 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I count only 4 keeps (that's including that author, which I would be very hesitant to do as a closer), are you counting the anon? -R. fiend 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Keep/whatever the term is. I personally couldn't care less about a stretch of road in Ohio but I support keeping this article because it is useful information to have in an encyclopedia for somebody somewhere sometime and ought to be preserved. Nobody will read it who is not looking for this information and it's not in anyone's way. I find Wikipedia useful for both broad and narrow topics. Maybe one day I will read here about the history and development of Steeles Avenue in Toronto, which I do have a mild fascination with. It would be a shame to delete this article.65.93.23.84 06:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article should be hosted on a web page somewhere away from Wikipedia. Endomion 06:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as attack/nonsense --Durin 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seaworthy_ships

No content, just a rant about wikipedia Hirudo 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So 2 Weeks Ago (Web Comic)

Delete: Fails
WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. Forum has 6 members. No mention on Amazon.com, etc. --Durin 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn webcomic. Eusebeus 16:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can ascertain no critical evaluations of the comic on which to base an article. Hiding talk 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE.
Final tally at close: 2 Keep; 10 Delete; 19 discarded anons/socks. Owen× ☎ 00:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Rose Day

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

A personal essay on a supposed holiday at
Harro5 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

(responding to first comment by 140.247.237.231 in anonymous ip votes section)I have better idea, Nick -- it is Nick, right? -- point us to the section of harvard.edu that announces it and we can take it from there. Until then, delete. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 05:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Eddie. The article verges on patent nonsense. Not a single
source provided in the article. You'd've thought someone at law school would understand the importance of that. --Last Malthusian 10:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Vanity and student pranks are nn.
Catchpole 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- Harvard ergo notable. --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So you would support an article on every paving stone and restroom at Harvard? I don't really support that idea. Stifle 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that my contribution, which was properly chronologically entered under Comments, has been forcibly removed here. It is my impression that a great deal of what was here three days ago -- votes, albeit some of them anonymous -- has been removed ... edited out. I now ask that my contribution to returned to Comments since it appears clear to me that the cabal have edited these votes to fit their agenda --SockpuppetSamuelson 13:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only other contribution you have made to thie AfD logged in as "SockpuppetSamuelson" appears above. You can look at the history of this AfD to verify this yourself if you like [92]. I spent nearly an hour trying to sort out the mess this AfD was in yesterday. It's entirely possible that I accidentally deleted some text, but if I did it was most definitely a) not text from you and b) not some act of a "cabal" acting to supress discussion/votes on this AfD to fit some agenda. If I made an error and did accidentally delete text, then by all means please show me what that text was by citing from the history of this article as noted above. Nobody is above fault, including me. If I made an error, I'm quite happy to admit it and fix it. --Durin 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google returns....nothing relevant. If, as according to the article's talk page, Nick Rose Day is "of national political significance" certainly some website out there would have mention of it? Yet, not a single one does. Odd for something that's not a hoax. Also, the ridiculous amount of anon IP votes and attempts at sock puppetry does not lend credibility to the article; rather the opposite. --Durin 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to masses of anonymous votes. Stifle 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ambi 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fight the deletionist cabal. Onward, wikipedia. Naif 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete', unverified and probably nonsense.--
nixie 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not everything at Harvard is encyclopedic. The squirrels of Harvard Yard aren't notable. Unless this has gained attention with the broader public this is just a campus tradition. Durova 17:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Anonymous IP votes" a.k.a Unbiased Efforts to "unmask [perceived] sockpuppet attempts"

To all the anon IPers; please at least attach a "~~~~" to the end of your comments. Certainly if you're capable of getting into Harvard Law School you're capable of following that basic instruction, yes? Besides, if you don't we'll do it for you and will as done below. Thank you. --Durin 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(The following is sorted by IP rather than date/time)

Keep - I too go to Harvard Law School. This day is real. This is the second year it was celebrated, and this year it was bigger than ever. Nick had nothing to do with the entry at all. The entire point is that he is so nice he would never do something like this. This was about everyone else recognizing him, and his holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.95 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 December 2005

Keep - I'm one of the women who wore red last year in support of Nick Rose day. It's a nice idea, and, while it might still be a small holiday, we really did celebrate it, and it's existence was documented on blackboards throughout the school last week, urging people to celebrate. The whole school also got two emails (at least) urging everyone to celebrate by thanking the nice guys in our lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.42.254 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 December 2005

Keep - i attend HLS and Nick Rose Day was celebrated complete with a Bar Review. It is a real event, regardless of whether or not it's in the Advisor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.250 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 14 December 2005

Attempted sock puppet votes by 24.61.41.250:
Keep - Is Nick Rose Day real? Well, in the words of one of the greatest thespians of our time, Ben Affleck in his earth-shattering performance in Armageddon... "I hope so. Otherwise what the hell are we fighting for." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.250 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 December 2005

Keep - Say what you will about the tenets of Nick Rose Day. At least its an ethos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.250 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 December 2005

Keep - Why is this so hard to believe? Do you really think that Harvard announcements would be open to the public? Do you really think we want the unwashed masses, the riff-raff that populate Cambridge, attending our events? Forbid it almighty God! As should be clear by now from the voluminous response from Harvard Law students, this is a real event. The Nick Rose Day Happy Hour was held at Tommy Doyles in Harvard Square. This celebration occurred immediately following the Nick Rose Day party, an event that was heavily attended. Perhaps if those of you who doubt this holiday’s existence try very hard and pray fervently to your gods, you too can attend Harvard Law School and experience this deeply significant cultural event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.136.63 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 December 2005

Keep - I do not attend HLS, but I am a lawyer, I do know several people who currently attend HLS, I interview applicants from HLS, and I am well aware of Nick Rose Day. First person accounts should be allowed for a Wikipedia entry; any suggestion about 'standards' not allowing first person accounts is absurd. You can contact any number of HLS students (or me - [email protected]) to verify - if after that you feel that this is all part of an elaborate conspiracy to invent a tradition out of whole cloth, then feel free to edit the section to include that commentary. But to delete the content in the face of first person verifiable accounts (and no verifiable does not require a web link - check your definition of veracity) is not consistent with the standards of Wikipedia, so get off your high horse...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.182.130 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 December 2005

Keep 63.115.63.171 23:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nick Rose is for real. Jesus, we don't have time for hoaxes over here!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.11.31 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 December 2005

Keep - the future leaders of the legal, financial and political world rely on Nick Rose Day to bring cheer to them in the cold, dark days of a Cambridge December as exams approach. While it is of relatively recent vintage, it has become widely accepted, and was celebrated on a school-wide basis in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.187.253 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 December 2005

Keep - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.0.209 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 December 2005

KEEP Though I know the wikipedia holier/nerdier/somehow-better-linked-to-a-general social and intellectual-conscienceness-than-thou "community" will nix it. HLS brethren, look at the discussion for (the ultimate) deletion of [D-bag football]. It is quite enlightening to see what others think they know about this school, its students, or even what a reasonable argument to keep a page looks like. Again, the anti-HLS bias present in this "community" ranges from innane contempt to outright animosity. Know that comments like "I fear for the future of American jurisprudence" and "if you're a law student, shouldn't you....(wow, whoever wrote that, just wow)" reflect a larger issue with the people on this site ... considering the number of undeleted, horribly written pages on this server that have little to do with anything of importance (by any definition ...even the mighty Wikipedia's, which you will find means nothing). Seriously, look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D-Bag_Football and see where well-articulated, logical, and, frankly, CORRECT arguments will get you. See the SAME BS COMMENTS? .............................The irony is simple; the better you defend your site, the more they will go after you. Make a broad argument? You are too dumb for law school, much less Harvard. Mop the floor with a Nozickian deconstruction of their flimsy premises? Well now you are simply being pretentious, and hey, you aren't that smart anyway you over-privileged snoot. Point out their OBVIOUS prejudice? What are you talking about you elite ass -- get out of your ivory tower and taste the real word (for a change). Now for the record, I am bitter and angry at Wikipedia, but not for the loss of the d-bag article .... it is for the hypocrisy that seems more than apparent by this alledged community. Just remember HLS folk, even after they delete this article (and they will, take my advice and save the html now) you can peruse Wikipedia for MUCH more important celebrations like, say, Linucon. Yeah. Right. Oh, am I myself prejudicial for calling out the nerds? Well, examine the profile of the magnificent leader who deleted the d-bag page (re-link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D-Bag_Football) and call me a liar. Oh, and before you call me anything really read that page: it is more than likely your whine has already been addressed. ----Dgaston 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)140.247.205.92 04:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)DGaston[reply]

Keep - this is a real holiday celebrated by students at the Harvard Law School, with defined rituals (wearing pink/red) and a real-life inspiration (the actual Nick Rose). This year it was recognized by the Dean of Students, campus social organizations, and several student-run parties at local bars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.207.39 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 December 2005

Um. I am at Harvard Law School, I know all the people involved. Anyone who wants to find out if this is true can email me. I will give you my real school email address and then send you proof of this. I can sent pictures, a notice from the school announcing the holiday, and a notice of the HL Central Bar Review in honor of the day. If you doubt this, i can prove it. Please do not delete this entry. Email me at [email protected]. Also, check out the Harvard Law School Section 5 Blog at: saucyintruders.blogspot.com, which has a link to this email address also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.237.231 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 December 2005

Keep - I celebrated this holiday last year and this year, you may think its unimportant but it is very real nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.242.217 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 14 December 2005

Keep - this has become an important annual tradition at Harvard Law School. It is a bona fide holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.46.120 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 14 December 2005

Keep - Highly culturally significant event in the lives of the particular population. Important for understanding the inner-workings of a devious and twisted mind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.217.177 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 14 December 2005

Keep - Nick Rose is the heart and soul of Harvard Law School. If you do not keep this web site, you will be sorry when he replaces Chief Justice Roberts AND Justice Ginsberg in 25 years. Yes, that's right, Nick Rose is so awesome that he will replace TWO justices at once! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.204 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 December 2005

Keep - I am also an HLS student and can verify that Nick Rose Day is an actual event. Thought I'm not sure that anything we do will convince anyone. (dklein) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.22.200 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 December 2005

NB on "sock puppet" votes. As it turns out HLS is expensive, and as such we students like to get what are called "roomates" in the parlance of our times. this being the case, myself and my 2 roomates (as well as other apartments i might add) share the same wireless connection and (lordy!) the same IP address. Thus, any claim of "sock puppet" votes is in fact re-tahd-ed as people here would say. good day. 24.61.41.250 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (no idea what "24.61.41.250 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)" means.[reply]

And how does anyone external to Harvard verify that there's a procession of people using the same IP and not one person attempting to sockpuppet? We don't. Regardless, the long procession of anon-IP votes is not helping to keep the article. As I previously noted, it is in fact harming it. If you want this article to remain, then provide some externally verifiable proof. How about scanning an article about the holiday from The Harvard Crimson and tossing it up on a web server somewhere? Better yet, reference the article on their website. I searched their website though, and there's nary a peep about it. If it's such a big event, how come the Crimson doesn't even cover it? Look, all of these assertions by the anonymous IPs are meaningless without verifiable sources. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need *something* to go on. --Durin 13:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Long, pointless text" a.k.a. Verifiable Evidence copy/pasted from an Official Harvard Law School Publication (access to internal servers required, this is why it is pasted) nonsense

No, its not Nick, although Nick is quite amused by all this controversy. The section of the website, which is called the Advisor, http://internal.law.harvard.edu/adviser/2005/12/08/general.php, is protected. Hence, I can forward you the email that has the listing of titles (although the links wont work for you). The Advisor is the internal site at Harvard Law School that lists all the events and things happening on campus. Here is the email with the links: HLS Adviser: 2005-12-08
HLS Adviser: PDF
Administrative Announcements Adviser Schedule Spring 2006 T Pass Orders E-mail Alert De-Stress Exam Study Break for 2Ls and 3Ls See "Midnight Pancake Breakfast" in Events section. Resident Assistant on Duty
Career Services HLS Job Bank NEWS @ OCS International Opportunities 2006 Judicial Clerkships
Clinical and Pro Bono Programs Clinical Program Information Important Clinical Deadlines See "Death Penalty Clinical Meeting" Events section. Pro Bono Information Hurricane Relief Opportunities For Students
Competitions International Online Competition in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution Sovereignty Symposium Scholarships
Course Announcements Winter Term Courses Food and Drug Law, Winter Term (Hutt) International Law and International Relations, Winter Term (Hathaway) Winter Trial Advocacy Workshop (Murray, et. al.) Spring Term Courses Developing an Interdisciplinary Approach to Health Management for Older Adults (GR 705.40) Legal Issues: Seminar (Professors Heymann and Rosenberg) Quantitative Social Science, Law, Expert Witnesses, and Litigation: Seminar (Stephenson, Rubin--FAS, Greiner--FAS) Possible Writing Group on Human Trafficking and Involuntary Servitude (Sidel)
Events Yearbook Portraits for All Classes The Forgotten 'Refugees': Protecting People Uprooted in their Own Countries Speaker's Freedom and Maker's Knowledge: The Case of Pornography Death Penalty Clinical Meeting Auction Night--Fun and Excitement The UN and Human Rights: An Informal Conversation with the New High Commissioner DOJ Information Session for 1Ls Scales of Justice Fall Concert Why We Want Immediate Withdrawal From Iraq and You Should Too: A Lunch Discussion With HLS Peace Conversation with Congressman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Heyman Fellowship Panel: Young Alums in Federal Government Public Interest Auction 2006 Volunteer Kickoff Meeting Midnight Pancake Breakfast Catholic Mass
Fellowships Lewis and Houston Fellowships for Law Teaching Reginald Lewis International Summer 2006 Internships
Financial Aid--J.D. Students Summer Public Interest Funding December E-Bill (The "Spring" Bill) Second Semester Cash Advance Checks Outside Resources Zuckerman Fellowships Iranian-American Bar Association Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago Academic Scholarship Program The Bristol County Bar Association
General Interest Happy Nick Rose Day Holiday Gift Drive HLS Giving Tree: A Gift Drive for Homeless Children Seeking Nominations for 2006-07 Scholars at Risk Fellows
Informational Technology Services ITS Student Services Changes in Help Desk/Computer Lab Schedule Exam Quiet Hours Take-Home Exam Computer Reservation Tips for Avoiding Computer Disasters During Exams New iCommons Contact for Auditors/Cross-registered Students
Jobs Student Assistants Sought for Winter Trial Advocacy Workshop Promote Ideas of the Harvard Negotiation Project Seeking an Assistant for Student with a Disability Professors Roe and Ferrell Seek RA Professor Goldsmith Seeks Summer RA
Library Exam and Holiday Hours Westlaw Westlaw Weekly Search Tip You've Got Questions, We've Got Answers
Public Interest Walk-in Hours Brief OPIA Closings Mass Law Consortium Job Fair at Suffolk Switzer Fellowship Deadline Rebellious Lawyering Conference Deadline for SPIF Registration is tomorrow, Dec. 9. See details in the Financial Aid--J.D. section. See "Public Interest Auction 2006 Volunteer Kickoff Meeting" and "Heyman Fellowship Panel: Young Alums in Federal Government" in Events section. See "Holiday Gift Drive" in the General Interest section.
General Information
To view this week's Adviser online, visit: http://internal.law.harvard.edu/adviser/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.237.231 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 December 2005

Why look: it's a whole lot of typing, alleging to be a bulletin, but unverfiable because its supposed source is completely inaccessible to the public. My bullshit meter has officially pegged. This isn't some stupid stunt to suck up to Alan Dershowitz, is it? --Calton | Talk 05:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The anon 140.247.237.231 (talk · contribs) defending this nonsense left a message on my Talk page. My reply to the IP talk, but reproduced here to be sure he sees it:

I don't know why you are so bent on deleting this, but you are mistaken. Nick had nothing to do with the entry. We invited you to email and talk to us. If you care enough, you can find out the truth. Otherwise, just leave the page alone.

Nick or whomever you are:
Spare me the invitation as there is nothing to "discuss". This is not a negotiation, these are standards -- and not my standards, Wikipedia's standards -- you must meet. Don't like 'em? Go to MySpace.

Wikipedia:Verifiability - What you put here has to be third-party verifiable. References provided by the subject don't count. If Nick Rose Day is true and notable, then it should simplicity itself to point to third-party, independent (i.e.; unmassaged or tampered with by you) references. Harvard's offcial website seems the simplest, most obvious, and least prone to tampering, and ought to have something on its official pages. Point us to the specific (public) page or some other third-party source.

Wikipedia:Vanity - "Vanity articles", as Wikipedia calls them, are verboten. to quote:
Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.

This article is bursting at the seams with vanity.

Wikipedia:Autobiography - If you're Nick, don't write about yourself.

Also, if you're a law student, shouldn't you:

a) understand the importance of and be familiar with the rules of an undertaking; i.e., Wikipedia?

b) understand the importance of and be familiar with working within the rules instead of trying to sleaze your way around them?

c) be able to write clearly? The article looks like it wouldn't pass muster in a junior-high English class.

--Calton | Talk 05:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. It appears that Wikipedia is overrun by people with way too much time on their hands, something which I do not have. I can no longer fight this battle. If you want verification, I will forward you emails from a harvard law school account. I can take pictures of stuff for you. whatever you want. I can not change that fact that Harvard Law School protects that part of its site. I dont know what else you want from me. That article was written by a few students here. We are in the middle of finals here, hence the lack of careful attention to editing etc. I cant defend this anymore. If you are so nuts about deleting it then just do it. Maybe some day I wil re-post it and try and work this all out. Everything here can be verified. And no, this is not done by Nick.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.141.101 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 December 2005

Wow. It appears that Wikipedia is overrun by people with way too much time on their hands, something which I do not have. Funny, you seemed to have plenty of time to whip up this nonsense -- and concoct excuses why you couldn't prove it -- to be talking about other people with "way too much time on their hands".

And guy, "overrun"? If this is what passes for legal thinking at one of America's most prestigious law schools, I fear for the future of American jurisprudence. --Calton | Talk 08:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"And guy, "overrun"? If this is what passes for legal thinking at one of America's most prestigious law schools, I fear for the future of American jurisprudence. --Calton | Talk 08:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)" - since when is a wikipedia entry classified as legal thinking? Does a proctologist have to talk about anuses all day? Not everything done by a lawyer (let alone a law student) meets the rigourous critera for formal legal reasoning. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns? Well, putting too much effort into something like Wikipedia would not be very smart, would it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.141.101 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 December 2005

...since when is a wikipedia entry classified as legal thinking? Okay, I was being overly specific: since there were only THREE responses total to this AfD when you whined about Wikipedia being "overrun", you displayed remarkably poor reasoning and logic skills generally -- fundamental skills important in the more nuanced practice of legal reasoning. Finding these shortcomings in someone claiming to be a Harvard Law student is like finding a CalTech student who can't do long division or a triathlete who can't swim.

Does a proctologist have to talk about anuses all day? No, but he should be able to tell his ass from his elbow. I'm thinking that this may pose a problem for you. Calton | Talk 14:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Calton, please read my previous post. And to the brilliant mind who found the time to move and reformat it (as well as to subject it to de facto marginalization becasue I, like others new to the "community," didn't create accounts...) please move it back so that people may compare it to comments like the one above: it is now officially signed.--Dgaston 16:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Calton, please read my previous post. I did. Legacy admission, right? --Calton | Talk 02:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? Was Mr. Rose a legacy? Does that matter? I really don't know ... clue me in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgaston (talk • contribs) 08:42, 16 December 2005
Thank you, you just answered my question. --Calton | Talk 23:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading "Legacy Admission" in a context related to academic institutions, i.e. family connections linked to school admission. I now assume that is not what you meant -- and that my above questions are unrelated to yours. Thanks. --Dgaston 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to undo the changes I made to unsort logged in and non-logged in votes. If you feel there is a need to do so, then feel free to go through the ~hour of work to do so. Personally, I don't see there being a reason for doing so. There is no de facto marginalization. The votes for anon-IPs exist and have not been removed from the page. They've been sorted by IP in an attempt to quell the apparent sock-puppet attempts and allow the admin that closes this AfD to do so more easily rather than having to contend with the mess this AfD was in before I did the sort. I invite you to review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette, in particular the 4th bullet. Thanks for your time. --Durin 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
so you have "~hour" to support one point of view but 0 time for the other. Interesting. That seems pretty unbiased to me. ... Right. Also, if you think your little effort to help the admin is unbiased, either you are a liar or a fool. I really don't care which, but I am leaving your biased edits for the admin. to judge. Also, for the future, please leave the admission criteria for hls to those who are qualified to make such assesments. See "if you're capable of getting into Harvard Law School you're capable of following that basic instruction, yes?"--Dgaston 08:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My changes did not support one view or another. My changes organized the AfD in an appropriate manner. It was horribly formatted before my changes, and very difficult to follow. I don't particularly care if you think I am a liar or fool. I acted in good conscience, and my conscience is clear. Rather than spending so much time attempting to rebuke me and others for all sorts of perceived sins, why not spend the time to find some externally verifiable information regarding this supposed holiday? You're not helping keep the article with your efforts. If you really want the article kept, then exert some of that energy into finding some sources. --Durin 13:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are a liar or a fool, and I apologize if you found the comments above to imply as such. I was strictly speaking towards the "percieved sin" of biased organization. I (and others) found these "housekeeping" edits to be so obviously slanted that the only avenues of denial appeared to be deceit or ignorance. Well, that plus my perception of you and others harboring a healthy bias against HLS. But that is not how a discussion should run, and I apologize to all for nudging it off track. However, I took your advice and refocused my efforts. With some cross-checking (verifying some "long pointless text" posted above), I found cause for some reorganization of my own. I have re-confirmed a source and participated in some clean-up. Thank you for the sage advice. --Dgaston 08:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the entry to remove some of the personal refernces (not put there by me to begin with), in hopes that this will make the entry more palatable to the censors here. I dont know what else to tell you - the primary source is protected although I can forward the email that the administration sends to everyone each week with the weeks announcements. 140.247.238.138 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the supporters: compare your article to Columbia University Marching Band. They're in the encyclopedia because they've received national press coverage and been on the David Letterman show. Durova 17:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio Jamie

Visar selimi

Non-notable. Poorly written. Personal biography Computerjoe 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Vanity and non-notable KBi 21:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mechnology

677 google hits for "mechnology", the first page of which have nothing to do with this definition. It's a copy of the content of User:Mechnology (by User:Mechnology). Delete --Quarl 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Someone is trying to pull an Isaac Asimov here and coin the next "robotics". --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOR. Stifle 22:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio. Jamie 23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Heat

Is this really notable? Computerjoe 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taking an L

Delete This is not an encyclopaedia article File Éireann 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial. Jamie 05:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial. Stifle 22:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me and him call it us

nn band, no hits on google or allmusic. Delete per
WP:MUSIC-- Syrthiss 21:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, non-notable. Please don't blank AfD pages. --Fire Star 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PJM 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete "punk rock "underground music" you idiots don't know anything besides aerosmith and led zeppelin fuck off —the preceding
unsigned comment is by Capathianridge (talk • contribs) 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: This user's only contributions are the article and this AFD. Stifle 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Deletetype in mahciu on google search (initials of band) and see what you get. this band is too important to the punk rock scene. they should be on here like other bands of the same genre such as: dropdead, pg. 99, orchid, why this band? why delete? is it really effecting you? what if some kids want to know about the history of the band? this band is on a label and everything. They've been around 3 and half years. Go to their myspace page and see how many fans they have: myspace thank you. they get radioplay on local airstations such as KWREK 91.1 FM. That's the GA Tech radiostation. —the preceding
unsigned comment is by Weleftasskeletons (talk • contribs) 00:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: This user's only contributions are this article, images and AFC related to this article, and this AFD. Stifle 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All bands whose main claim to fame is a Myspace page should be quickly deleted. —Brim 23:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost as much because of the fans as the non-notability. To the fans above: how exactly did you think telling us to "fuck off" would increase this page's chances of survival? I'd like to hear the thought process behind that. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. --StoatBringer 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Contrary to the nomination, I find 232 Google hits [93]. The fans who want to get this article kept should review the guidelines at
WP:MUSIC, see which criteria the band meets if any, then come back and provide us with evidence. No vote yet. --Metropolitan90 02:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for failure to meet
WP:MUSIC. "And how shall we fuck off, O Lord?" Eddie.willers 05:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for meeting the main criterion of non-notability for bands: a myspace page. Stifle 22:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Also, you guys might want to rename your band to "He and I call it us"... just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackohare (talk • contribs)

Delete, fails
WP:MUSIC. --IByte 20:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Romney

This article has notability deficiency syndrome. CDN99 21:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BIO. [94]. If someone shows that she brings more to the table I might reconsider. PJM 21:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Expand. There should be enough verifiable information on a state first lady out there. For example, The Boston Globe in 1994 had a story titled "ANN ROMNEY'S SWEETHEART DEAL SHE DECIDED HER LOVE OF 30 YEARS SHOULD BE SENATOR." (Caps in original.) Sounds interesting. -- Mwalcoff 23:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 22:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: NN.--AaronS 01:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following is from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion:

Unremarkable people. An article about a real person or persons that does not assert their importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.

I believe the article in question assumes that being married to a governor makes Mrs. Romney notable. You can agree or disagree with that, but you can't say that the article doesn't assert her importance. You should vote regular delete, IMO. -- Mwalcoff 01:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason why an article on the first lady of an important state would be deleted. It should rather be expanded. --SeekingOne 01:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wife of sitting governor. The problem isn't notability, the problem is that it is a stub. I refer you to TODAY's issue of the Boston Globe which reports that Governor Romney said that he would leave politics if his wife became sicker. (See page B.5) Crypticfirefly 04:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as vanity/A4. --
Shazaam! - <*> 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Mourning the vote

This is about a web page started by two students, and doesn't show evidence of notability. Self-promotion/advocacy. Delete RJH 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Sound

Page is clearly promotional advertising. Delete RJH 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete advert. Stifle 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete advert InvictaHOG 16:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, advertisement.
did you read this?) 05:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xeni Jardin

Orphaned AfD by anon editor 69.123.252.12. Nominator's only contribution. MCB 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Very well-known journalist for
Wired, Wired News, and Boing Boing. 298,000 Google hits. Nomination probably not in good faith. MCB 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: the article was apparently created by its subject, which should encourage a healthy degree of skepticism and fact-checking, so I don't doubt the nominator's good faith, but the article has been expanded and rewritten by others and the subject does appear to be sufficiently notable. Jonathunder 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 23:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable…alas.
rodii 04:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I can't begin to list the things wrong with this nomination. Well, actually, I can. I'll start with -- subject is notable, AfD probably bad faith. Adrian Lamo 00:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Obviously she's been the target of a spiteful anonymous user. ioerror 19:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stationary policy

One-line, trivial, self-evident sub-stub dictionary definition; no potential for encyclopedic expansion; delete. MCB 22:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not self evident, I thought it was about management of office supplies. Can be expanded to explain why policies are stationary and when they are desireable.
Kappa 06:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

that would be stationery _└ UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 08:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems like no more potential than a dictdef (which can be transwikied to Wiktionary). Delete until such time an encyclopedic entry is written. _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 08:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and then delete per UkPaolo. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 01:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete per UKPaolo. Stifle 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Sichao

Non-notable. A casual glance through Google results show that although he not unknown, I don't think there's nothing particular notable about this guy. He's just another astronomer? I'm open to be convinced otherwise of course. Enochlau 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is verified. android 79 22:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable, nn as written. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I have a gut feeling that this guy is notable (based on 200 Ghits and the creating writer's earnestness only), but the evidence isn't in the article, so as of now, it must go. I hope a Sinologist comes forth to help. Please alert me to rewrites, and I will happily reverse my vote. Xoloz 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment: Google "Wang Sichao" | "Sichao Wang" 257 results, "王思潮" 19400 results, so this guy is importance or significance enough. — Yaohua2000 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are only 258 unique Google hits for 王思潮. Any number of hits doesn't mean anything unless you can add something to the article that says why he's important. android 79 23:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hope all of you review this carefully. Actually, there are only 81 unique hits for "Wikipedia" — Yaohua2000 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It continues to astonish me that presumably smart people somehow think that sites like WP generate these ridiculously low unique hit counts. I have explained elsewhere, but will do so again
When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected. A rough extrapolation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand. In the case of Wikipedia, you have to correct for your sample; the number of duplicates is so low because the pagerank of Wikipedia itself is so high. I mean honestly, did you really think that Wikipedia was only mentioned in 81 unique places??? Delete this as nn. Eusebeus 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under
WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 23:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
It was brought here as a disputed speedy. The deleting admin speedily undeleted it. android 79 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Enochlau 23:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was aware of that. I think the disbute has no merit, and so i re-tagged it as a speedy. I was tempted to simply delete, and would arguably have been justified, but I long ago said i wouldn't delete for nn-bio unless soemone else had tagged. DES ^(talk) 00:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it still fits well within the speedy deletion criteria. However,
WP:CSD notes that "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." Hence, it should not be speedied. Enochlau 01:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I take "the assertion" in that phrase as meanign the asserion of notability. taht is, if the articel says "X is notable because he did Y" then saying "no he didn't do Y" makes the assertion disputed. Simply saying "yes he is notable" with no reason given does not make the matter disputed IMO. DES ^(talk) 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I had thought of it the other way. You might just be correct. Enochlau 01:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If simply saying "X is notable" avoids a speedy, and if simply saying "I dispute the deletion" requires undeltion and AfD, both with no evidece for or indication of notability beyond mere assertion, than A7 is pretty useless and pointless. But I've made my case and will not speak further on this article. DES ^(talk) 01:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tag put back on. Enochlau 01:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion policy sounds quite interesting. — Yaohua2000 01:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a reason why the subject is considered notable is provided and appropriate
criteria A7. --Allen3 ^talk 23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Someone with 19400 hits is not notable, I doubt. — Yaohua2000 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google hits for people in
Nabu-rimanni: 3610
So do you mean all above should be speedy deleted immediately??? — Yaohua2000 00:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Can we stop worrying so much about Google hits? The main problem is that the article doesn't say anything about why he is notable. You note that your English is not that good; doesn't matter, just add it, and we can clean up your grammar for you if you like. Enochlau 00:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, the Google test is not always meaningful; the thing that saves those articles from speedy deletion, however, is not their Google hits but their content. Prove to us that the Google test has failed us here and add something meaningful to the article. If you are unable to do so in English, as you have indicated on my talk page, there's not a whole lot we can do here unless we get a translator. Does an article on this person exist on the Chinese Wikipedia? If not, why don't you write one? android 79 00:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wang is neither my relative, nor my friend, he has nothing to do with me, if you wan to delete this guy, just delete it. I'm so tired and want a sleep. I'm sorry to bother you all. Thanks. — Yaohua2000 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wang_Sichao. Enochlau 01:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,
Kappa 02:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete nn-bio. Stifle 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HYPERSTRONG KEEP This is a credible scientist, NOT some nut, like the Robertson Panel protocol would have people believing.Martial Law 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree that the article is somewhat skeletal, but I think the notability is addressed. If my chinese was better, I'd try to flesh it out, but I think we'll have to wait for someone more qualified to expand this kernal. In any case, it should be kept as a good start Erudy 14:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be notable because of the media attention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'delete (2 keep, 5 delete, discounting socks). As awesome as college recruits are, wait until he's recieved the Heisman or broke a college record before reposting. -
have you seen this?) 04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Matthew Stafford

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

Keep This page should not be deleted because Stafford is one of the top high school football recruits in the country. He is known by hundreds of thousands of high school and college football fans around the country. [96] TexasDawg 22:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused, TexasDawg. Aren't you the one who put the AfD template there? Why are you asking it to be not deleted then? Enochlau 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been unnecessarily deleted several times. (I've only submitted it once.) I was advised to add the AfD here. TexasDawg 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Enochlau 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ are semi-professionals notable? --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Abstain --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smart move. Because you clearly don't have much of an argument here. All you can do is point out that certain people who have made very good arguments for keeping the entry do not have many other edits. TexasDawg 19:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My initial comment was a weak delete, suggesting that I prepared to be convinced that the article shouldn't be deleted. It was not a 'smart move' it was simply the right thing to do considering the eveidence presented after I made my inital comment. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- There are all kinds of famous amateur and collegiate athletes with entries at Wikipedia, JiFish. Stafford is widely and increasingly known by high school and college football fans. TexasDawg 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stafford is pretty famous already as the #1 high school quarterback in the country. Hundreds of thousands of college football fans know who this kid is. 24.99.52.214 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(The above note it that user's only contribution) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Matthew Stafford is known by hundreds of thousands of people. In the past week he has been the subject of newspaper articles in the Dallas Morning News, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and the Athens Banner-Herald. In addition, over the last year he has been profiled by every college football recruiting service and been the subject of hundreds of articles on those websites and publications. If you think Stafford is an unremarkable person because the world of high school football recruiting is limited, I would suggest you browse ESPN's website and read the synopsis and reports they provide on Matt Stafford that bare striking resemblance to the articles they author on professional athletes. 24.131.5.142 01:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(The above note it that user's only contribution) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I know shit about football except for the little bit from high school. Great times, and excellent times from high school. Often, the notability isn't so grand for these type of athletes. However, this may be a different case, perhaps unprecendent. I have briefly overlooked the matter and it is my understanding that most of the information in the article is truthfull. Some of it specially the last sentences may not be as verifiable, however that still doesn't solve our problem. Is a high school notable enough? According to wiki guideline,
WP:BIO
it is proper to have a bio for:

Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.

Can we consider "High school," as part of the highest level in mainly amateur sports? I would imagine the bar is pretty high, (higher than Canadian High School football), however I'm not convinced that it is the highest level of amateur sports football. Perhaps, a quick blurb on the "High school football" would be appropriate and may help this article for better acceptance. Perhaps, simply, merging the information onto the school's article would be even better. Again, we need to konw if the high school is notable enough to be compared to college or professional football? For now, delete. and add the info to the school's article. --CylePat 01:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment Probably you meant
WP:BIO#Alternative tests. I wonder if this has been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject? (Autobiography)... and the other test, should be adhered too. --131.137.245.200
16:59, 14 December 2005

Should
D.J. Shockley, Marcus Vick, and several other college football quarterbacks also have their Wikipedia entries deleted? TexasDawg 18:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep He's the #1 recruit in the nation, and will cross over the notability line-in-the-sand ~~this August~~ when he enrolls at Georgia. The info here is plenty verifiable and I don't think it justifies creation en masse of high-school athletecruft. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is enrolling at Georgia in 2 weeks. TexasDawg 02:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that the language (Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. ) concerning the inclusion of athletes in Wikipedia was written with the ultimate goal of keeping "unremarkable" athletes from being listed. The diction chosen provides a necessary leniency for athletes because it is difficult to determine a set of qualifications that would work for every country. The best rough comparisons of Matthew Stafford's remarkableness and stature would be to say that he is the best under the age of 18(henceforth U18) Amercian football player in the world. This honor would be roughly the equivalent of being the best U18 soccer player in Europe. The only difference is that due to the American football system, Stafford does not have the opportunity to play professionally at this point. This does not make him unremarkable, however, when one considers the aforementioned media attention he receives. Furthermore, whether you like the sport or not, the spread of American football through avenues such as NFL Europe and the leagues forming in Japan associated with the yearly NFL preseason game played there indicate more than just a passing appreciation of the remarkable abilities of a player of Stafford's stature. Finally, it seems somewhat settled that once he is officially enrolled at the University of Georgia that his inclusion in Wikipedia will not be at issue. The question then shifts to how his notoriety or remarkableness will change, when he enrolls in the first week of January, to make him worthy of being included in Wikipedia. The answer is that it will not. He will still be the ludicrously talented and widely known Matthew Stafford and will still receive coverage from the same national newspapers and sports media outlets as he does now. 24.131.2.1 04:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(The above comment is that users 2^nd contribution. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - waste of time to delete an entry that will be reconsitututed in a month or two when he becomes over-the-line famous. --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with S.S. above. Whether he's the next John Elway or a bust, Stafford will be a closely followed player at one of the top college football programs in the state of Georgia. TexasDawg may have slightly jumped the gun under the wikipedia policy, but as the top-rated quarterback prospect in the country, Stafford is and certainly will be deserving of an entry. Hadnot 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(The above comment is that user's only edit.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--What is your point? TexasDawg 19:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty standard to point out if people contributing to AfD discusuions have no editing history. This is to inform the user that closes the debate that the commentor may possibly not be a wikipedian, or that a single user may be commenting multiple times. This isn't to say that it will be discounted, but generally comments of this nature are given less weight than comments from long time users. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.14.73 (talk • contribs)
(This users 3^rd edit). --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT!!!

Matthew Stafford is the most important figure in a popular Texas high school football sub-culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.146.2 (talk • contribs)

Keep this page please. He may be a future heisman trophy candidate and far surpasses any other college recruit. He is entering a strong program with a lot of momentum. He is a player to watch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlewhit (talk • contribs)
(This user's only edits.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever he may be in the future, right now he's a dime-a-dozen high school (not even college yet!) quarterback. Note that
[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dime-a-dozen? That's pretty funny. He's the #1 recruit in the country. TexasDawg 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sock overflow. Grue 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn-bio, influenced by the pile of sockpuppets and unsigned. Stifle 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't mean to be rude, but all the deletes on this page are from non-Americans who likely have very little understanding of American college football or the college football recruiting process. Just google his name and find the numerous articles on ESPN and other national sports media describing how prominent this guy is. 66.108.138.221 13:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::"This is the users first edits". Please note: That we are talking about a high school student. He is not in college yet. Though it is my feeling that high school is trully an
Georgia Bulldogs Football which I eventually added to the article. --CylePat 02:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)) Someone might be able to argue "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." But what are the limits of this? What happens to journalist who constantly write article... or what about Joe blow from Ottawa who killed someone on the street two days ago? (that was just a top of mind example and I'm not saying Mat is anything of a resemblance to a criminal, I'm just trying to say that that argument, though I have suggested it, might not be appropriate). Anyway, if the many suggestion I have provided do not provide common sense for someone to develop this article into another venue, I really don't know what will except for my aforementioned comment of "this is only a comment: delete (I have already, even though wikipedia is not a voting system, stated this "vote"" --CylePat 15:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Stafford is graduating HS ealy and enrolling in Georgia January 3rd. If you delete it now, you know it will be back up in no time.
above was UNSIGNED by 70.129.142.213, (This users 1^st edit). (also note that users[contributions] are weird. Again. Comment.: Mat is not a pro yet. If he does then we should maybe consider the article. --CylePat 06:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I finally found a source that seems reputable that indicates Mat is going to Georgia College next year but it says spring 2006. Some other place says he's already enrolled. Dear Unsigned or anyone. If you can provide the source of the information... that is that he's enrolling "on January 3rd", that would be greatly appreciated. (even then we all know how hasty some news papers can be at trying to be the first to publish information) This is important to the delete subject because it put in question his present status (even though he hasn't even done the try outs for the QB position) Actually now that I think about it, he could miserably fail at not be accepted on the team even though he's at Georgia, right? So, again we're into prospective semi-pro athlete. I'm still not convinced. And, how many football players at Georgia have their own article? --CylePat 16:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several. Including
this year's quarterback. And it's not "Georgia College." It's The University of Georgia. When you call it "Georgia College," you let everyone know that you're not very familiar with American football. -- TexasDawg 17:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

First off, an article stating he's enrolling in the Spring of 2006 is an article stating he is enrolling in January. The vast majority of American Universities work on a two semester a year system. The first semester runs August-December and is known as Fall Semester. The second semester runs January-May and is called Spring Semester. Therefore, when they say he's enrolling Spring of 2006, they are conveying to the reader that he will begin classes in January of 2006, as we've been stating all along. Also I'm not quite sure why you think someone would invent the idea that Matthew Stafford is beginning classes in a couple weeks just to have his bio posted, but nonetheless you can find that information at plenty of other places as well. For instance, you can visit the University of Georgia's website and utilize their "search for people" function to see that Matthew Stafford is already enrolled as a student. This is the most official source possible. You would not find Stafford in the UGA system unless he has already enrolled in classes. In other words, If he were not going to be taking classes until next August, he wouldn't be in the system yet. You can search for him here. http://www.uga.edu/inside/find.html

Or you can visit the Atlanta Journal Constitutions website and right this second you will se a picture of Matt Stafford front and center with the caption underneath that reads "QB Matthew Stafford enrolls at Georgia in January as its star recruit." http://www.ajc.com There is also a detailed in-depth story on him connected to the picture- http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/uga/1205/18stafford.html Or you could go to either of the websites devoted to covering UGA sports and ask one of the people who run the sites as their job when Stafford begins classes. You will not want to do this, however, because due to the extreme interest in the sport and UGA, these sites charge a monthly fee to read their articles and talk to their experts. You can find these sites at http://www.ugasports.com or http://www.georgia.theinsiders.com. At the very least you could go to the following page and look at the list of 50 something various articles, although you won't be able to read the content for free, that have talked about Stafford on that website alone. http://uga.rivals.com/prospectnam.asp?Type=1&Sport=1&pr_key=29228

Thank you, user:66.191.177.80 for your above comment (which you forgot to sign). Interesting enough, I believe, we still need to know if top recruits for a (semi-pro) sport is an important enough step for inclusion into wikipedia for a biography article? (You might think I'm agreeing with you but I couldn't possibly comment on that right now!) --CylePat 21:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Enrollement into the
Georgia Bulldogs Football. After that I think there is still a long way to go, such as being listed in this section: Football allstars or at least the Roster and Bio. So stilll not convinced. --CylePat 22:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

First, sorry for forgetting to sign the last comment. Second, he has already been accepted into the Football program. In the United States, you get recruited to play football at a University. In other words, by signing with UGA, he has not only been accepted, but UGA has promised to him that they will pay for the cost of his education, any injuries he incurs during his career, his housing, his food, his school books, and a monthly stipend. This is a necessary facet of the American football system because players are not allowed to enter the NFL until they are three years removed from high school. Combine the inability to play at the highest level because of this restriction with the high percentage of quality football players that come from low income families, and you find a need to provide college football players with these perks in order to insure they can matriculate at the university. Furthermore, his name cannot be added to that official roster and bio link you entered until he starts classes, or in other words January. The NCAA, which oversees college sports in the USA, does not allow Universities to make comments on kids that have not yet taken classes. In other words, even though he has been widely published about in Nat'l media outlets for a couple years and has been officially accepted and enrolled at UGA, no one on the UGA staff can comment on him until he takes his first class. The NCAA would consider posting his roster and bio on that page to be a comment on him. Therefore, you will not see his bio officially added until after classes start back up in a couple of weeks. As for whether or not he needs to be on the All Star page, you should note that there is at least one member of the team, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Tereshinski_III , who is not on that list but has a bio that has apparently never been questioned on Wikipedia. 66.191.177.80 23:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:) AHHa! And the smoking gun is finally here! (or at least a fairly good point to take into consideration) :) Good job on counter argument! Now we must see if that precedence withstands the tests of WP:BIO. I say that because seemingly, that article doesn't have many categories listings, or anything linking to it. This means the article, I believe, might not have had the chance to be properly revued by a substantial amount of peers. It may not be the best precendence. However, I would seemingly tend to support that article, (under the impression that this is a player of that college team) This is only because you have indicated he is on the team roster already. (that article itself sucks and needs much improvement) Anyway I tried finding something similar with my University team the
Ottawa Gee Gees but I couldn't find a precedence. And though you example is seemingly good, there still might be a better one out there, no? --CylePat 02:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry if this is off topic, but what do you mean by "sign". I dont have an account here, so my only ID is my IP address, and Im not going to sign that. I guess I'll go ahead and create an account. Sorry for my 2 poor contributions, they were a prank I pulled to make my friend laugh. It wont happen again.

(This does not regard the delete topic but the signature of comments on wiki) I see you made a login! (from our edit conflict) You're on your way to a good start. Many benefits come with signing in. You get an easy to watch page history. You also get, according some wikipedians, some notority, credibility, etc... (which works sometimes against you) Anyway. It appears to be wiki guideline to sign in, specially when dealling with the deletions of an article. If you want you can leave a message on my user page by simply clicking my name at the end and going to the discussion page. To leave your signature simply type --~~~~ or use the before last box on the top (just before the line --) --CylePat 04:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Cronosquall 06:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaliban

I was just going to rewrite this to remove the blatant POV, but no... this term has almost never been used in the context the article describes, as far as I can tell. I found few actual uses of it amongst 1,000 Google results [freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/887160/posts], [97]. Those were the only hits I found, as for the rest, it seems this is used by someone as their handle on gaming forums, which inflates the results quite a bit. Never used in print, that I can tell. Mentioned a handful of times in political forum sites... not even in the context of the article. I think this article is more trying to coin a new phrase than define an existing one. W.marsh 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I liked my cardboard castle when I was a kid. Delete,
WP:NOT a soapbox. --Last Malthusian 10:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Stifle 23:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Co-dictatorship

Article is a
neologism. Delete. Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Dyarchy Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
That article is inaccurate.
Certainly that article could use some work, but a dyarchy is indeed rule by two. The Britannica article seems to refer to a specific example of a dyarchy. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism. Gazpacho 21:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either a hoax or a random nn neologism. Take your pick. Stifle 23:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax or
original research. -- JimR 06:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hushlak

non notable bio Melaen 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails the google test/as per nomination. Agent Blightsoot 22:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a non-notable biography. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-16 05:59:10Z That was the same person retard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.164.22.68 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave cahill

non-notable bio. There is a Dave Cahill on AMG, yet it is not the same person. The band FOOLZ does not have an entry on AMG either. I vote Delete Deyyaz 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nn-bio. (tagged) Stifle 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Andres Ruiz de Somocurcio

Non-notable actor. No google hits. Tried looking up the movie quoted in the IMDB and didn't find it. Tried him in the IMDB, couldn't find him. Ifnord 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not verifiable (IMDB or Google). Article links to Velasco Studios which also cannot be verified. The Velasco Studios article lists quite a few people who share the same last names. Probably home made films. Putting that page on AfD also. -- JLaTondre 03:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arcipello

non notability / vanity Melaen 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nominator. - TexasAndroid 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liana Dabous Memorial Statue

Liana Dabous was deleted, and this seems even more questionable. At best, it's an article about a statue at a high school, at worse, it's nonsense. Either way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Delete. Catamorphism 22:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move~~ to Liana Dabhous and keep. I believe the first woman to fight for the USA in a war is notable, if that claim is verified.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Like I said, Liana Dabous was deleted, presumably because this isn't a real person. There's only 1 Google hit and it's for a Wikipedia talk page. Catamorphism 23:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the original AfD and can't read deleted content. I have now tried to verify the claims made, and as you suggest, I can't find any external support for them, including by using some possible spelling variations. I change my vote to delete on those grounds. -
[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nothing in this article is verifiable by Google, neither Dabous herself, nor the high school where this statue is supposedly located, nor the town where it is supposedly located. If they were real, one would expect sufficient Google hits to verify that. At best they are
unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 02:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete per nom. Stifle 23:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.
Rx StrangeLove 05:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael J. Snyder

Possible hoax, no Google hits for terms like "Marz-175" and "Parlos Gentry". -- Curps 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
link to US patent for the syringe device Syringe device for physiological fluid sampling , United States Patent 4934379, co-invented by Snyder and WIllis Marolf, the name sake of MARZ-175. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4934379.html

This comment was added by IMDatabase, the creator of the article. -- JLaTondre 03:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The link provided by IMDatabase did not work for me, but I found the patent at the Patent Office (see [99]). However, the USPTO lists the patent to a Michael H. Snyder. I can find no other verifiable sources to the inventor or commedian. -- JLaTondre 03:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely notable bio. Stifle 23:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus.
Rx StrangeLove 06:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Maya Gold (porn actress)

No claim to notability in her field. Also, it is unlikely that any information will be available on her any time in the near future, given the secretive nature of pornographic performers. (Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can always go back and create the article when verifiable biographical information comes to light -- but right now this article is, from my perspective, porncruft.) Thus, my nomination, along with my vote to delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so she's listed on the porno version of imdb (as well as the real one). The porno IMDB has the following encyclopaedic data:
Performer AKA Maya, Mya

Birthday No Data

Astrology No Data

Birthplace No Data

Years Active 2002-2004

Ethnicity Caucasian

Hair Color Blonde

Measurements No Data

Height No Data

Weight No Data

Tattoos None

Piercings None

Website No Data

So, once we excise the unverifiable we have an article which says her name, and counts the films. Since these films are apparently churned out at the rate of one or two a day by their film crews, that essentially amounts to "she was active in the porn film industry for a couple of years".

Which is a long-winded way of saying delete functionally unverifiable porncruft. -
[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I would say delete as unmemorable day after tomorrow. D e nni ☯ 03:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I find this an unusual point of view, that would mean the loss of almost all material related to history because it was, at one time, non-n otabel, before becoming notable again in a different context --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you'd care to try this again in English... D e nni ☯ 03:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Lara Roxx may well be next with this precedent ;-). Eddie.willers 05:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ***V*** recently deleted the AfD with the message "Article vandalized and placed on deletion list." Doesn't seem like a bad faith edit on the surface but ***V***'s only edits are related to this article.

Keep. Probably lots of info available-- JJay 08:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given that neither IMDB nor IAFD can verify even the basic details like date of birth or real name I'd say that "probably" is putting it a bit strongly :-) Using the
[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
What you can verify is that she has done over 100 films, many with major producers such as Private. She has thousands of fans. Therefore she is notable as far as I'm concerned. -- JJay 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can't verify "hundreds" of films, and I can't verify "thousands of fans" either. Even if we could distinguish those who buy a film as fans from those who are just buying another porn movie, there are no sales figures in the cited sources. -
[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Verify this: [100]. This woman is the real deal. -- JJay 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not of her existence, but the existence of this article given the absence of any verifiable biographical information. Just because some
scriptkiddie decides to write a virus and distribute it with the promise of a pornographic screensaver doesn't add anything of substance to this article. (If anything, this information should be added into the article on computer viruses or the article on the virus itself, if only as an example.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I have to disagree. How far would the virus have gotten had it been distributed with pics of Margaret Thatcher? -- JJay 09:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hypothetical info does not satisfy a
real policy. --Last Malthusian 10:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete non-notable. Stifle 23:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having IMDB and IAFD references make her pretty notable usually. Also, can everyone who is voting look at my proposal for a separate criteria for pornography here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Criteria_for_Pornography and contribute to ideas. Thank you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also note when checking porn articles you can look at Wiki Porn here: [101]. As it so happens, this article hasn't been entered in there yet. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I put up the porn box for her. I've got her bust size, photo, aliases, age, hair colour, eye colour and aliases. That's as much as we have for anyone else. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zordrac, what was your source for those stats? The sources I found admitted the measurements were speculative. -
[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I put it in the article [102] and it didn't say it was speculative. It might not be 100% accurate, but its a source. I don't know how accurate we can get for things like this, where they often lie about who they are, and other times just refuse to give details. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comparison, there is this article here Mia_Stone that has no more info in it than Maya's (indeed it has less), and that person is a lot less notable, with much fewer films etc. I just picked the first one I could find in the Hungarian Porn Star list, and there we go. She is notable enough by the standards that we currently use. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zordrac, I understand what you are saying, but what it amounts to is that the sources available for porn "stars" are neither reliable nor authoritative. That is not a good reason for using their info because there is none better available! At the very least a biography should have someon's real name, we haven't even got that. There is next to no properly verifiable data (in the Wikipedian sense of verifiable from trusted secondary sources) on this person. IMDB is a reasonably trustworty secondary source, the porn databases probably aren't as they are prone to PR puff from subjects and speculation from fans. As far as I can see this article is still functionally unverifiable in the Wikipedian sense. -
[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I thought that this was a good point, so researched (and discovered verifiable proof) of the real names of a number of porn stars, namely Tiffany Teen, Tawnee Stone and Jordan Capri and included their real names in the articles. Apparently the porn community of Wikipedia has decided that real names CANNOT be included in articles of porn stars because of a fear of stalking them. Thus, we cannot include them. I would personally be quite happy to, but we are not allowed to. Apparently I am in some trouble for providing more verifiable information with those cases. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the names are not widely known and do not come from
verifiable sources. (I've done some checking on my own. For instance Tawnee Stone's real name was "revealed" on a bulletin board system. Basically, due to the nature of bullein boards, this information doesn't suit the verfiability piece.) Now if the names came from a verifiable news site, such as AVN, then they would be suitable for inclusion. Even when people are concerned about "internet stalking". Obviously, if you can list some of your sources here, then we can go through them as a group and see which ones are truly verifiable sources. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 07:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm somewhat surprised to find a "porn community" on Wikipedia, and even more surprised that they feel they can censor information which is available from other verifiable sources in this way. That sounds like they think they
[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Team Sucks

I think the reason is selfevident from the article. Can it be speedied? It's not patent nonsense.
[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I disagree with "Just zis Guy, you know?" The reason for any deletion is not self evident nor is it even discernable. I would like to know SPECIFICALLY what in the listing he found to be inaccurate or offensive and I would be happy to debate whether he is correct or not and if he is I would be happy to edit the listing appropriatly but to just "object" to the listing and not give a real reason is absurd. The account is as accurate as I can remember it to be, I have links to the Bungie website to back up that these matches did indeed take place and that the monikers of both the teams and the one team member mentioned are factual as are the dates. If in fact the person who is objecting is sexypizzaman1 and he does not want his GamerTag (which obviously is not a real name) used, then I will be more than happy to edit it out but otherwise I can see abslolutely no valid reason for this listing to be deleted. The listing refers to an actual historical event that is held quite dear to a group of people over one hundred and growing everyday,(The members of the "Married With Children" mature Xbox Live Gamers group) and is no less valid than several long standing listings that recieve no flak whatsoever.
I am the author of the listing and as I mentioned, if it is found to be in any way inaccurate, then I will be happy to modify it properly but people need to know the story and the legend of the Blue Team and why they are considered to be the Suckiest Sucks to have ever sucked at the fine game of Halo 2 online. I have several witnesses that will attest to the accuracy of the accout in the listing and links to sites to back the story up if neccesary.
Mr_Wormwood

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bokumaro

non notability Melaen 23:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN Jamie 05:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

''Delete per above. Izehar (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle 23:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China olive

Restourant non notability Melaen 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --File Éireann 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiTravel. Stifle 23:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Liberatore(T) 18:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Enigmatica

vanity Melaen 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless expanded to explain how it qualifies under
WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Izehar (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A3. Stifle 23:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to
United States National Guard. Owen× ☎ 19:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Army National Guard Forces

Useless list article which is empty Mecanismo | Talk 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - has potential as a category page, but not as an article. See also related articles:
United States National Guard. — TheKMan^talk 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; We already have the category U.S. Army National Guard. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
United States National Guard. The content in this article might be useful as a template, but not as an article... Blackcats 07:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. -- JJay 18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why? --Mecanismo | Talk 12:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons. To encourage people to do articles on these Guard Forces. -- JJay 18:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Gateman1997's and Tom Harrison's comments. You will realize that not only the reasons behind a "keep" vote aren't at all obvious but that also a list about that subject doesn't make sense. --Mecanismo | Talk 23:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are entitled to their views. A list is better. -- JJay 23:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is also your personal view. It may not be properly fundamented and based on logic but it is still your oppinion. On the other hand, if you want to state your oppinion on a vote, it is expected that you base your vote on logic reasoning and not on a whim. --Mecanismo | Talk 02:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I can properly fundament my oppinions as well as any one. -- JJay 03:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would not object to point out the basis for your vote. A blank statement and a "for the obvious reasons" aren't much proof of a person's capacity of forming a fundamented oppinion based on policy and presented evidence. Moreover, it seems that you have a tendency to not fundament your statements, votes and criticism regarding submittions I make, which I fail to answer why. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was no criticism because I voted Keep without comment. Although I previously fundamented my reason in response to your probing question, I'll restate here- I support keeping the list: To encourage people to do articles on these Guard Forces. I'll make that more explicit now. -- JJay 18:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand. Let's turn those red links black. -- JJay 18:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, everyone knows the 50 states have ANG forces... we don't need a red list of them.Gateman1997 18:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
United States National Guard. Izehar (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete listcruft. Stifle 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Chamberlain House

Article about a house some college students live in, no actual claim to notability. Doesn't fall under the current criteria for speedy deletion. --W.marsh 23:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable vanity. Gazpacho 20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity. Izehar (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Stifle 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B Down Boyz

Non-notable group. Google test yields four results on three sites. Klaw ¡digame! 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and expansion does seem unlikely. Izehar (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Transexing, Transsexing

neologism / original research Melaen 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely an OR essay and neologism not in wide use. MCB 23:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Izehar (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Stifle 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 07:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arryx

Article reads too much like spam Mecanismo | Talk 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Based on some of their awards and innovative products, I think they may be notable enough to consider keeping. The text is nearly neutral enough that a bit of judicious editing would do the job. Thanks. :) — RJH 16:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is an award winning company. If you don't like the tone, edit the article. -- JJay 18:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Izehar (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, a bit junky. Stifle 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Yellowstone Club

Vanity/advert for "The world's only private ski and golf community". Delete. MCB 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising--File Éireann 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete advertising _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 17:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Izehar (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete advert. Stifle 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "It is a little-known resort destination".
siafu 17:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio Jamie 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam strong

Not notable. Does not meet inclusion criteria at
WP:BIO. —Brim 23:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio Jamie 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Wing

No mention of notability. Does not meet criteria of
WP:BIO. —Brim 23:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try n Save

Article is about an internet forum that isn't worth noting. Memberlist shows 7 members, 5 of whom have never posted [103]. Very little activity ever. --PB1 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --StoatBringer 00:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable web forum, which apparently has an average of one posting every five days. --Metropolitan90 02:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try n Delete. Blackcats 06:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle 23:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Move to
Rx StrangeLove 05:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Abortion trauma syndrome

This supposed syndrome doesn't need its own article, let abortion debate handle it. Google check[104] hits 258 Tznkai 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom, also this is virtually a POV split, as the "syndrome" is poorly documented, to say the least. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
changing to Move as the article is clearly going to be kept, and the move will get rid of this title, which is at least part of the objectionability. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is a good start. -- JJay 01:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion debate is pretty large, and this controversy certainly seems to exist. The article is even written with a fairly neutral POV, which is rarer than it should be on this kind of thing. I think it should be ~~kept~~. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to move per Blackcats. Seems more NPOV. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Seems like if JAMA deems it worth writing about, even if only to shoot it down, it's notable. That article seems to have incited at least four response papers in JAMA, too. I get about as many journal articles using post-abortion syndrome instead, but PAS looks far and away the preferred term in the general public according to this google search at 55,700 results. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed move sounds good. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is about the medicine of abortion and as such, in my opinion, removed somewhat from the abortion debate. Also, I think people looking for info on abortion trauma syndrome probably aren't so much interested in the debate. The objectives of the article (as I see them) are:

define the term,

present the view of the mainstream medical establishment on the issue and

place it in the context of the larger debate about abortion.

My bias: I started the article. Nephron 03:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems consenus is to move. I don't have a strong objection to that. What I will say is -- there is a reason I choose abortion trauma syndrome: Stotland uses the term and he explains why it was constructed; the words abortion trauma syndrome were choosen because it sounds like it is similar to
PTSD, which is what a few want people to believe. In other words, the name of the article (like the issue) has a POV; the disorder was made-up to put fear into women that are considering an abortion. Nephron 15:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, albeit reluctantly. The title, alone, reeks of neologism. However, axing it would be likely to spawn an exponential retinue of synonymously-titled articles: post-abortion syndrome, post-abortion stress syndrome, etc. -Kyd 04:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Blackcats below. -Kyd 03:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if this "It is not considered to be a medical condition by the medical community at large.[1] It is also not defined as psychiatric condition in the DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10," is true... then why is this article even here.Gateman1997 05:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have articles on crazier things that no one in the scientific community believe in, but that's never stopped laypeople. It gets tons of google hits, so we should address it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 12:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to
post-abortion syndrome. Notable at least as an alleged phenomenon. This wording gets a lot more Google hits than the current title and is more NPOV. Blackcats 06:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Move per Blackcats. 'Abortion trauma' does verge on being a POV title. --Last Malthusian 10:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move per blackcats: changing my vote to move, and apologizing for poor research. I didn't do my homework this time.--Tznkai 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Blackcats. Stifle 23:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Blackcats. -Ikkyu2 23:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Blackcats. -- Jbamb 21:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_13&oldid=1081091819"~~